Why the science doesnt matter!!!

[skookerasbil]

As Ive been saying forever on here, nobody cares about the science!! The climate crusading OCD's on here talk about "cults" and "deniers" being "clueless".......but who really are the clueless here?

NO MATTER WHAT the science says, the harsh reality is that the only way the AGW absolutists propose to fight the devastation from CO2 is by banning fossil fuels and replacing them with renewables, chiefly, wind and solar. These are state of the art for the climate crusaders.

But upon closer inspection, wind power, for example, is a veritable joke.......thus, no matter what the science says, fossil fuels are here to stay no matter how loud the climate nutters try to indict the deniers. 100% certainty on this.........

Consider some facts on wind.........



Tilt away from windmills[/B


Power subsidies cost taxpayers, kill jobs

Saturday, July 13, 2013

“The thing about money is that when you have it you don’t need it and when you need it you don’t have it,” my grandfather used to tell me. He could have said the same thing about wind power. It’s most abundant when demand for energy is lowest and least abundant when demand is highest. No amount of subsidy, no amount of federal or state regulation can change this simple fact. Because of this, wind power can never live up to its advocates’ promises. They would have us believe that subsidizing wind energy can improve U.S. energy security. But since wind turbines can’t be strapped to the top of your car, it isn’t clear how.

Most of America’s electrical power is produced from domestic energy sources, with coal, natural gas and hydroelectric accounting for 75 percent of our total power generation. The United States is either self-sufficient or soon will be in all of them. Nuclear power, which provides 19 percent of our power, is the only major electric power source in which the United States isn’t self-sufficient. But with 40 percent of the world’s recoverable reserves of uranium held by longstanding allies Canada and Australia, we don’t need to be. At the same time, wind power carries its own set of energy security problems. The next generation of wind turbines will require 6,614 pounds of copper and 95.24 pounds of rare earth minerals per megawatt capacity of generation. The United States now imports 35 percent of its copper and is facing increased competition for these resources from rival China, which already accounts for 40 percent of global demand. Wind energy subsidy advocates claim that subsidies help create jobs. Subsidized wind power generation doesn’t create jobs; it simply redistributes jobs to a much smaller group of people.Subsidized wind power only “creates” jobs by displacing workers in the more efficient conventional energy sectors and the general economy. That’s been the case in every country it’s been tried. Spain’s renewable energy programs destroyed 2.2 jobs for every one they’ve created; the United Kingdom’s green energy programs destroyed 3.7 jobs for every one they created; and Italy could have either created 6.9 jobs in the conventional energy sectors or 4.8 jobs in the general economy for the money it spent creating each renewable job, according to Italy’s prestigious Bruno Leoni Institute.


Apparently wind energy advocates don’t know what anyone who has ever earned a paycheck knows: There’s a difference between gross and net. Wind subsidy proponents also argue that wind energy will help significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but just how isn’t clear. Because wind power is intermittent and unpredictable, adding wind power to our power generation makes it less efficient and, consequently, more likely to produce — not reduce — emissions. This occurs because wind offers the most power when it is in greatest supply, driving electricity prices down in the short term and prompting power companies to retire less profitable base load and intermediate power plants. This makes power companies even more reliant on less efficient, more costly, fossil fuel back-up generation that’s needed during peak demand periods when wind turbines are often idle. To put it another way: If wind subsidies fall, the American people will reap a windfall.



- See more at: Tilt away from windmills | Boston Herald






losing

 

[flacaltenn]

Nobody wants to build primary generation in a market where they have to dump their product when the wind blows for 20 minutes.. That is the current "must carry" rules.

That -- and the fact you can't really contract for wind power next month.. There is no guaranteed delivery that you can enforce.. So lining up generation and economic planning is "Gone With the Wind"..

The Euros are butt hurt from this investment and the natives are angry.. Maybe our "delay" in adoption was a good thing..

 

[IanC]

you can either build a fossil fuel power plant, or a fossil fuel power plant and windmills.

I wish they would honestly factor in the cost of having fuel power on standby for wind power instead of dishonestly factoring in fuel plant inefficiencies when they are in standby mode as a cost towards fossil fuels.

 

[IanC]

BTW Skooks- I agree that politically AGW is withering on the vine and no one is listening to the science anymore.

but I still like it!

 

[TheOldSchool]

Why the science matters...

Scooterass Bill admits that there is climate change. That was out of the question for deniers just a few years ago.

Does man affect climate change? I don't know. But the only way we WON'T find out is if we decide that the "science doesn't matter."

 

[numan]

'
Why the very word "science" is an insult to a free-born American to have any opinions he chooses -- no matter what the god-damned facts are!!

.

 

[skookerasbil]

Its fascinating that the climate crusaders just cannot connect the dots on this. The reason? No matter what the topic, the progressives always and I mean always, ignore the questions MOST people want answered: What does it cost? That is why they are losing in epic fashion, particularly since about 2007. Even if deniers were to buy ALL OF THEIR narrative.......so fucking what? Then what? I'll tell you what. It wouldn't change dick. Fossil fuels would still dominate the landscape for AT LEAST the remainder of the century.......because there are zero other viable options.


Which is precisely why......nobody gives a rats ass about the science.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Its fascinating that the climate crusaders just cannot connect the dots on this. The reason? No matter what the topic, the progressives always and I mean always, ignore the questions MOST people want answered: What does it cost? That is why they are losing in epic fashion, particularly since about 2007. Even if deniers were to buy ALL OF THEIR narrative.......so fucking what? Then what? I'll tell you what. It wouldn't change dick. Fossil fuels would still dominate the landscape for AT LEAST the remainder of the century.......because there are zero other viable options.


Which is precisely why......nobody gives a rats ass about the science.

I love how you're great passion is to try to convince everyone "not to care." Good for you bud

 

[gslack]

'
Why the very word "science" is an insult to a free-born American to have any opinions he chooses -- no matter what the god-damned facts are!!

.

Coming from a known sock-puppeteer and known BS artist...

You cal it a fact if it tells you what your political party likes to hear.. Spare us the condescension...

 

[skookerasbil]

Its fascinating that the climate crusaders just cannot connect the dots on this. The reason? No matter what the topic, the progressives always and I mean always, ignore the questions MOST people want answered: What does it cost? That is why they are losing in epic fashion, particularly since about 2007. Even if deniers were to buy ALL OF THEIR narrative.......so fucking what? Then what? I'll tell you what. It wouldn't change dick. Fossil fuels would still dominate the landscape for AT LEAST the remainder of the century.......because there are zero other viable options.


Which is precisely why......nobody gives a rats ass about the science.

I love how you're great passion is to try to convince everyone "not to care." Good for you bud

Convince who? That's the whole point genius......there is nobody to convince!! This drivel about CO2 and climate change......its nothing but an internet hobby in 2013.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

As Ive been saying forever on here, nobody cares about the science!! The climate crusading OCD's on here talk about "cults" and "deniers" being "clueless".......but who really are the clueless here?

NO MATTER WHAT the science says, the harsh reality is that the only way the AGW absolutists propose to fight the devastation from CO2 is by banning fossil fuels and replacing them with renewables, chiefly, wind and solar. These are state of the art for the climate crusaders.

But upon closer inspection, wind power, for example, is a veritable joke.......thus, no matter what the science says, fossil fuels are here to stay no matter how loud the climate nutters try to indict the deniers. 100% certainty on this.........

Consider some facts on wind.........



Tilt away from windmills[/B


Power subsidies cost taxpayers, kill jobs

Saturday, July 13, 2013

“The thing about money is that when you have it you don’t need it and when you need it you don’t have it,” my grandfather used to tell me. He could have said the same thing about wind power. It’s most abundant when demand for energy is lowest and least abundant when demand is highest. No amount of subsidy, no amount of federal or state regulation can change this simple fact. Because of this, wind power can never live up to its advocates’ promises. They would have us believe that subsidizing wind energy can improve U.S. energy security. But since wind turbines can’t be strapped to the top of your car, it isn’t clear how.

Most of America’s electrical power is produced from domestic energy sources, with coal, natural gas and hydroelectric accounting for 75 percent of our total power generation. The United States is either self-sufficient or soon will be in all of them. Nuclear power, which provides 19 percent of our power, is the only major electric power source in which the United States isn’t self-sufficient. But with 40 percent of the world’s recoverable reserves of uranium held by longstanding allies Canada and Australia, we don’t need to be. At the same time, wind power carries its own set of energy security problems. The next generation of wind turbines will require 6,614 pounds of copper and 95.24 pounds of rare earth minerals per megawatt capacity of generation. The United States now imports 35 percent of its copper and is facing increased competition for these resources from rival China, which already accounts for 40 percent of global demand. Wind energy subsidy advocates claim that subsidies help create jobs. Subsidized wind power generation doesn’t create jobs; it simply redistributes jobs to a much smaller group of people.Subsidized wind power only “creates” jobs by displacing workers in the more efficient conventional energy sectors and the general economy. That’s been the case in every country it’s been tried. Spain’s renewable energy programs destroyed 2.2 jobs for every one they’ve created; the United Kingdom’s green energy programs destroyed 3.7 jobs for every one they created; and Italy could have either created 6.9 jobs in the conventional energy sectors or 4.8 jobs in the general economy for the money it spent creating each renewable job, according to Italy’s prestigious Bruno Leoni Institute.


Apparently wind energy advocates don’t know what anyone who has ever earned a paycheck knows: There’s a difference between gross and net. Wind subsidy proponents also argue that wind energy will help significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but just how isn’t clear. Because wind power is intermittent and unpredictable, adding wind power to our power generation makes it less efficient and, consequently, more likely to produce — not reduce — emissions. This occurs because wind offers the most power when it is in greatest supply, driving electricity prices down in the short term and prompting power companies to retire less profitable base load and intermediate power plants. This makes power companies even more reliant on less efficient, more costly, fossil fuel back-up generation that’s needed during peak demand periods when wind turbines are often idle. To put it another way: If wind subsidies fall, the American people will reap a windfall.



- See more at: Tilt away from windmills | Boston Herald






losing

Fossil fuels are not here to stay, you ignoramus.

There is a finite supply of fossil fuels on earth.

Some day, we will run out of fossil fuels.

What then?

 

[flacaltenn]

As Ive been saying forever on here, nobody cares about the science!! The climate crusading OCD's on here talk about "cults" and "deniers" being "clueless".......but who really are the clueless here?

NO MATTER WHAT the science says, the harsh reality is that the only way the AGW absolutists propose to fight the devastation from CO2 is by banning fossil fuels and replacing them with renewables, chiefly, wind and solar. These are state of the art for the climate crusaders.

But upon closer inspection, wind power, for example, is a veritable joke.......thus, no matter what the science says, fossil fuels are here to stay no matter how loud the climate nutters try to indict the deniers. 100% certainty on this.........

Consider some facts on wind.........



Tilt away from windmills[/B


Power subsidies cost taxpayers, kill jobs

Saturday, July 13, 2013

“The thing about money is that when you have it you don’t need it and when you need it you don’t have it,” my grandfather used to tell me. He could have said the same thing about wind power. It’s most abundant when demand for energy is lowest and least abundant when demand is highest. No amount of subsidy, no amount of federal or state regulation can change this simple fact. Because of this, wind power can never live up to its advocates’ promises. They would have us believe that subsidizing wind energy can improve U.S. energy security. But since wind turbines can’t be strapped to the top of your car, it isn’t clear how.

Most of America’s electrical power is produced from domestic energy sources, with coal, natural gas and hydroelectric accounting for 75 percent of our total power generation. The United States is either self-sufficient or soon will be in all of them. Nuclear power, which provides 19 percent of our power, is the only major electric power source in which the United States isn’t self-sufficient. But with 40 percent of the world’s recoverable reserves of uranium held by longstanding allies Canada and Australia, we don’t need to be. At the same time, wind power carries its own set of energy security problems. The next generation of wind turbines will require 6,614 pounds of copper and 95.24 pounds of rare earth minerals per megawatt capacity of generation. The United States now imports 35 percent of its copper and is facing increased competition for these resources from rival China, which already accounts for 40 percent of global demand. Wind energy subsidy advocates claim that subsidies help create jobs. Subsidized wind power generation doesn’t create jobs; it simply redistributes jobs to a much smaller group of people.Subsidized wind power only “creates” jobs by displacing workers in the more efficient conventional energy sectors and the general economy. That’s been the case in every country it’s been tried. Spain’s renewable energy programs destroyed 2.2 jobs for every one they’ve created; the United Kingdom’s green energy programs destroyed 3.7 jobs for every one they created; and Italy could have either created 6.9 jobs in the conventional energy sectors or 4.8 jobs in the general economy for the money it spent creating each renewable job, according to Italy’s prestigious Bruno Leoni Institute.


Apparently wind energy advocates don’t know what anyone who has ever earned a paycheck knows: There’s a difference between gross and net. Wind subsidy proponents also argue that wind energy will help significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but just how isn’t clear. Because wind power is intermittent and unpredictable, adding wind power to our power generation makes it less efficient and, consequently, more likely to produce — not reduce — emissions. This occurs because wind offers the most power when it is in greatest supply, driving electricity prices down in the short term and prompting power companies to retire less profitable base load and intermediate power plants. This makes power companies even more reliant on less efficient, more costly, fossil fuel back-up generation that’s needed during peak demand periods when wind turbines are often idle. To put it another way: If wind subsidies fall, the American people will reap a windfall.



- See more at: Tilt away from windmills | Boston Herald






losing

Fossil fuels are not here to stay, you ignoramus.

There is a finite supply of fossil fuels on earth.

Some day, we will run out of fossil fuels.

What then?

Plenty of VALID choices.. ALL being drowned out by fundamentally flawed "politically correct" ideas like wind turbines..

We should be emphasizing Hydrogen as a stored fuel.. The most abundant element in the universe.. We KNOW how to use that.. It got us to the moon probably before you were born..

Nuclear power could end the imaginary CO2 crisis tomorrow.

But right now --- the OP is correct. Doesn't matter what the latest AGW scientific excuses are.. Because the alternative agenda -- the "non-fossil-fuel" alternatives are D.O.A.

The general public ASSUMES that wind and solar are ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuel. They are not.. They are at best (the way we are using them NOW) ---- supplements.

 

[skookerasbil]

As Ive been saying forever on here, nobody cares about the science!! The climate crusading OCD's on here talk about "cults" and "deniers" being "clueless".......but who really are the clueless here?

NO MATTER WHAT the science says, the harsh reality is that the only way the AGW absolutists propose to fight the devastation from CO2 is by banning fossil fuels and replacing them with renewables, chiefly, wind and solar. These are state of the art for the climate crusaders.

But upon closer inspection, wind power, for example, is a veritable joke.......thus, no matter what the science says, fossil fuels are here to stay no matter how loud the climate nutters try to indict the deniers. 100% certainty on this.........

Consider some facts on wind.........



Tilt away from windmills[/B


Power subsidies cost taxpayers, kill jobs

Saturday, July 13, 2013

“The thing about money is that when you have it you don’t need it and when you need it you don’t have it,” my grandfather used to tell me. He could have said the same thing about wind power. It’s most abundant when demand for energy is lowest and least abundant when demand is highest. No amount of subsidy, no amount of federal or state regulation can change this simple fact. Because of this, wind power can never live up to its advocates’ promises. They would have us believe that subsidizing wind energy can improve U.S. energy security. But since wind turbines can’t be strapped to the top of your car, it isn’t clear how.

Most of America’s electrical power is produced from domestic energy sources, with coal, natural gas and hydroelectric accounting for 75 percent of our total power generation. The United States is either self-sufficient or soon will be in all of them. Nuclear power, which provides 19 percent of our power, is the only major electric power source in which the United States isn’t self-sufficient. But with 40 percent of the world’s recoverable reserves of uranium held by longstanding allies Canada and Australia, we don’t need to be. At the same time, wind power carries its own set of energy security problems. The next generation of wind turbines will require 6,614 pounds of copper and 95.24 pounds of rare earth minerals per megawatt capacity of generation. The United States now imports 35 percent of its copper and is facing increased competition for these resources from rival China, which already accounts for 40 percent of global demand. Wind energy subsidy advocates claim that subsidies help create jobs. Subsidized wind power generation doesn’t create jobs; it simply redistributes jobs to a much smaller group of people.Subsidized wind power only “creates” jobs by displacing workers in the more efficient conventional energy sectors and the general economy. That’s been the case in every country it’s been tried. Spain’s renewable energy programs destroyed 2.2 jobs for every one they’ve created; the United Kingdom’s green energy programs destroyed 3.7 jobs for every one they created; and Italy could have either created 6.9 jobs in the conventional energy sectors or 4.8 jobs in the general economy for the money it spent creating each renewable job, according to Italy’s prestigious Bruno Leoni Institute.


Apparently wind energy advocates don’t know what anyone who has ever earned a paycheck knows: There’s a difference between gross and net. Wind subsidy proponents also argue that wind energy will help significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but just how isn’t clear. Because wind power is intermittent and unpredictable, adding wind power to our power generation makes it less efficient and, consequently, more likely to produce — not reduce — emissions. This occurs because wind offers the most power when it is in greatest supply, driving electricity prices down in the short term and prompting power companies to retire less profitable base load and intermediate power plants. This makes power companies even more reliant on less efficient, more costly, fossil fuel back-up generation that’s needed during peak demand periods when wind turbines are often idle. To put it another way: If wind subsidies fall, the American people will reap a windfall.



- See more at: Tilt away from windmills | Boston Herald






losing

Fossil fuels are not here to stay, you ignoramus.

There is a finite supply of fossil fuels on earth.

Some day, we will run out of fossil fuels.

What then?

OH GAWD!!!!


s0n.......you're going to be in your box for many decades before that even becomes a remote concern.

The progressives can never see out of their bubble.......but for the rest of us, there is something called technological innovation and the development of energy that we cant even fathom in 2013.

In the meantime........its fossil fuels baby!! FTMFW.......because that's just the way its going to be.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

As Ive been saying forever on here, nobody cares about the science!! The climate crusading OCD's on here talk about "cults" and "deniers" being "clueless".......but who really are the clueless here?

NO MATTER WHAT the science says, the harsh reality is that the only way the AGW absolutists propose to fight the devastation from CO2 is by banning fossil fuels and replacing them with renewables, chiefly, wind and solar. These are state of the art for the climate crusaders.

But upon closer inspection, wind power, for example, is a veritable joke.......thus, no matter what the science says, fossil fuels are here to stay no matter how loud the climate nutters try to indict the deniers. 100% certainty on this.........

Consider some facts on wind.........



Tilt away from windmills[/B


Power subsidies cost taxpayers, kill jobs

Saturday, July 13, 2013

“The thing about money is that when you have it you don’t need it and when you need it you don’t have it,” my grandfather used to tell me. He could have said the same thing about wind power. It’s most abundant when demand for energy is lowest and least abundant when demand is highest. No amount of subsidy, no amount of federal or state regulation can change this simple fact. Because of this, wind power can never live up to its advocates’ promises. They would have us believe that subsidizing wind energy can improve U.S. energy security. But since wind turbines can’t be strapped to the top of your car, it isn’t clear how.

Most of America’s electrical power is produced from domestic energy sources, with coal, natural gas and hydroelectric accounting for 75 percent of our total power generation. The United States is either self-sufficient or soon will be in all of them. Nuclear power, which provides 19 percent of our power, is the only major electric power source in which the United States isn’t self-sufficient. But with 40 percent of the world’s recoverable reserves of uranium held by longstanding allies Canada and Australia, we don’t need to be. At the same time, wind power carries its own set of energy security problems. The next generation of wind turbines will require 6,614 pounds of copper and 95.24 pounds of rare earth minerals per megawatt capacity of generation. The United States now imports 35 percent of its copper and is facing increased competition for these resources from rival China, which already accounts for 40 percent of global demand. Wind energy subsidy advocates claim that subsidies help create jobs. Subsidized wind power generation doesn’t create jobs; it simply redistributes jobs to a much smaller group of people.Subsidized wind power only “creates” jobs by displacing workers in the more efficient conventional energy sectors and the general economy. That’s been the case in every country it’s been tried. Spain’s renewable energy programs destroyed 2.2 jobs for every one they’ve created; the United Kingdom’s green energy programs destroyed 3.7 jobs for every one they created; and Italy could have either created 6.9 jobs in the conventional energy sectors or 4.8 jobs in the general economy for the money it spent creating each renewable job, according to Italy’s prestigious Bruno Leoni Institute.


Apparently wind energy advocates don’t know what anyone who has ever earned a paycheck knows: There’s a difference between gross and net. Wind subsidy proponents also argue that wind energy will help significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but just how isn’t clear. Because wind power is intermittent and unpredictable, adding wind power to our power generation makes it less efficient and, consequently, more likely to produce — not reduce — emissions. This occurs because wind offers the most power when it is in greatest supply, driving electricity prices down in the short term and prompting power companies to retire less profitable base load and intermediate power plants. This makes power companies even more reliant on less efficient, more costly, fossil fuel back-up generation that’s needed during peak demand periods when wind turbines are often idle. To put it another way: If wind subsidies fall, the American people will reap a windfall.



- See more at: Tilt away from windmills | Boston Herald






losing

Fossil fuels are not here to stay, you ignoramus.

There is a finite supply of fossil fuels on earth.

Some day, we will run out of fossil fuels.

What then?

OH GAWD!!!!


s0n.......you're going to be in your box for many decades before that even becomes a remote concern.

The progressives can never see out of their bubble.......but for the rest of us, there is something called technological innovation and the development of energy that we cant even fathom in 2013.

In the meantime........its fossil fuels baby!! FTMFW.......because that's just the way its going to be.

So you admit don't give a shit about what happens to your descendents after you die.

 

[Old Rocks]

The numbers have already been done.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....y.gov.uk/d/CLOSED_SHORT_executive_summary.pdf

This Review has assessed a wide range of evidence on the impacts of climate change and on the economic costs, and has used a number of different techniques to assess costs and risks. From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the Review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting.

Climate change will affect the basic elements of life for people around the world – access to water, food production, health, and the environment. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms.

Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.

The cost of business as ussual is going to be far greater than the cost of addressing climate change now.

 

[skookerasbil]

Read what the environmental nutters were saying in 1922......all the doom and gloom catastrophy crap were hear now, none of which materialized.........

http://heatherbarbee.blogspot.com/2007/08/global-warming-in-1922.html


I cant stop laughing........



Look......people who get hysterical about everything = part of life. Go to an Italian wake in Brooklyn and you see shit you never thought you'd ever see. We've all seen them.........the hypocondriacs around us who can never stop talking about their current ailment. Same with the environmental crusaders........and this shit will be happening 100 years from now......some nuts will be angst about some doomsday scenario put forth by some other nut.

 

[flacaltenn]

The numbers have already been done.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....y.gov.uk/d/CLOSED_SHORT_executive_summary.pdf

This Review has assessed a wide range of evidence on the impacts of climate change and on the economic costs, and has used a number of different techniques to assess costs and risks. From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the Review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting.

Climate change will affect the basic elements of life for people around the world – access to water, food production, health, and the environment. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms.

Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.

The cost of business as ussual is going to be far greater than the cost of addressing climate change now.

THe costs of weather damage has ALWAYS been a few % of GDP.. There is more value and a higher distribution of that value today than in the 1930s.. Tracking those $ #s to quantify "climate change" is a fools errand..

It's a distraction from the fact that even these jerks can't tell you if it's 5% or 20% of GDP or what we should be preparing for. Is it 20 ft by 2050 or 2ft? Is it 2 CAT4 hurricanes per year landing or none? Is it gonna rain or drought..

When EVERY weather disaster is an OMEN of evil --- the natives are gonna stop paying homage to you.... And then you'll have to get a real job medicine man..

 

[skookerasbil]

The numbers have already been done.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....y.gov.uk/d/CLOSED_SHORT_executive_summary.pdf

This Review has assessed a wide range of evidence on the impacts of climate change and on the economic costs, and has used a number of different techniques to assess costs and risks. From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the Review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting.

Climate change will affect the basic elements of life for people around the world – access to water, food production, health, and the environment. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms.

Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.

The cost of business as ussual is going to be far greater than the cost of addressing climate change now.

THe costs of weather damage has ALWAYS been a few % of GDP.. There is more value and a higher distribution of that value today than in the 1930s.. Tracking those $ #s to quantify "climate change" is a fools errand..

It's a distraction from the fact that even these jerks can't tell you if it's 5% or 20% of GDP or what we should be preparing for. Is it 20 ft by 2050 or 2ft? Is it 2 CAT4 hurricanes per year landing or none? Is it gonna rain or drought..

When EVERY weather disaster is an OMEN of evil --- the natives are gonna stop paying homage to you.... And then you'll have to get a real job medicine man..

LOL......too funny. And I woke up this am here in New York where we have been in a heat wave and they had predicted "severe thunderstorms" overnight. Heavy flooding rain, "up to 2"/hour"......."high probablility".

Wake up just a short time ago and go outside........dry as a bone. Clear sky. Was supposed to be hellacious thunder and lightning. But.......nothing.

This resonates with many people.........say to themselves wtf? Like they are good at predicting stuff 5 years.......10 years down the road.......right.


The science of all this stuff related to climate is about as much about science as a game of darts.

 

[skookerasbil]

And FlaCaltenn.......check this out. Huffington Post........speaks to exactly what the topic of my thread is here........the translation of this article is simple: nobody cares about the science.


Global Warming - From Science to Agitprop

Posted: 18/07/2013 11:22

'We seem to be losing the communications battle,' the Met Office's chief scientist complained six months ago.

With global warming, science morphs seamlessly into political campaigning, Bob Ward's article, 'The Corruption of the Public Debate on Climate Change,' being a fairly typical example of the genre.

There is the obsession with secret funding sources and with the ideological motivations of non-adherents, things the philosopher Karl Popper identified as telltale signs of a pseudoscience.

Amidst all the agitprop, there is a nugget of science: no 15-year period of global temperature yields a statistically significant trend. But then, to its embarrassment, neither could the Met Office demonstrate a statistically significant trend in global temperature for the last 130 years.

That doesn't mean observed temperatures did not rise - they did - or that global warming, whether man-made or not, did not happen. Rather it illustrates the sheer difficulty in demonstrating whether the rise is outside a range of random natural variation and of moving from the physics of the test tube to the immense complexity of the atmosphere.

Bert Bolin, the first chairman of the IPCC, acknowledged that global warming was not something 'which you can prove.' In one of his last lectures, the late Stephen Schneider - one of the most intellectually able of all climate scientists - asked his students whether the science of anthropogenic climate change was settled. Dumb question, he answered. 'Climate science is not like test tube science,' Schneider said. 'You don't falsify.'

Although codified by Popper in the 1920s, falsifiability was the standard set in the Scientific Revolution and used with devastating effect by Lavoisier in his demolition of the phlogiston theory of combustion. Instead of seeking evidence that would falsify, climate science follows a much older injunction, one from the Beatitudes: 'Seek and ye shall find.'

As Popper argued, evidence can be found for virtually any proposition, so when global temperatures don't rise as anticipated, evidence is sought in ocean temperatures, sea ice extent and glacier retreat.

The absence of a falsifiability test renders the science of global warming inherently weak. Instead acceptance of the central proposition of global warming - that the earth's atmosphere is rapidly warming thanks to man's activities - marks a reversion to pre-scientific standards, principally its reliance on consensus, peer review and appeals to authority.

Computer simulations of future temperature rises cannot be verified. In the words of the mid-20th century Nobel physicist PW Bridgman, to correctly predict only has a past tense.

The provisional findings of climate science cannot explain how global warming, which was little more than a scientific curiosity for much of the 20th century, became a political phenomenon that defines our age. Indeed, the first two scientists to have quantified the effect of the Industrial Revolution on global temperatures, Svante Arrhenius and Guy Stewart Callendar, both thought global warming would be beneficial.

The explanation for global warming's potency is the rise of environmentalism, following publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, arguably the single most important book since the Second World War. Environmentalists believe that in destroying fragile ecosystems, humans are imperilling their own survival.

Whilst scientists in the early 1970s signed manifestos predicting the imminent collapse of industrial civilization, the first environmental wave quickly collapsed in the economic stagnation of the 1970s. With the return of economic growth in the 1980s, global warming became environmentalism's killer app.

In 1957, the American scientists Roger Revelle and Hans Suess pointed out that mankind was carrying out a large-scale geophysical experiment. Prejudging the results of a scientific experiment is bad science, yet this one simultaneously generates powerful calls to halt the experiment before it is concluded by invoking the precautionary principle.

'What is called objectivity consists solely of the critical approach,' Popper wrote. But questioning climate science science undermines collective action to save the planet, so critics and sceptics must be marginalised and delegitmised. No one knows the outcome of the geophysical experiment. But the results of the politico-scientific experiment are now in, and include the demotion of the scientific standards established by the Scientific Revolution.

Global Warming - From Science to Agitprop | Rupert Darwall




In other words.......its all bullshit and nothing more than speculation. Hardly science.


The fools who buy into it hook, line and stinker.........well, lets just say they prefer to live in a fantasy bubble. Some people tend to this. The people in here are OCD about it.

Bottom line.......the whole climate change movement......is losing.


Which makes me..........very happy

 

[numan]

'
We are in the midst of the greatest mass extinction event since the age of dinosaurs.

In the midst of many, many other disasters, the ice sheets are melting, carbon dioxide and methane are gassing out of the melting permafrost and the Arctic is losing its ice cover and absorbing more and more radiation.

The heat retaining effects of carbon dioxide have been known since the 19th century, but the Pashas of Petroleum and their allies, in a desperate attempt to retain their weath and their power, have pulled out all the stops to mislead and confuse the mindless consumer-units, who will believe any nonsense to save themselves the pain of thinking.

The human race is SO doomed !!

.