Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You know you're just making shit up as you go, right?
That is your game, I am simply relating the understandings and observations of the mainstream scientific perspective of this issue.
Your reading and comprehension skills appear to be wanting.
Please show how it means anything different.
Higher levels of atmospheric CO2, counteract the other influences of warmer temperatures, additional water and nitrogenous fertilizers, reducing plant growth by roughly 48% (40/84) compared to these same conditions with lower levels of atmospheric CO2.
Is it climate change or global warming faither?
The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was established in 1987 to review the scientifc evidence and understandings regarding the issue of global warming.
Climate change is the process, a gradual warming of the globe is the symptom we are realizing in the modern climate change.
There is no room for faith in this issue. The science is based on facts, observations and interconnected science understandings that involve most fields of natural science.
AGW is all about manipulating data and funding.
that is your unsupported and irrational conspircay theory
None of your theories prove man is the cause of anything. Just long standing cycles that existed before man.
These are simply your false and flawed misunderstandings and arrogant ignorances on display.
Climate Change Science - Science behind climate change | Entergy
...The IPCC predicts an increase in sea levels of 3 feet by 2100 due to thermal expansion of the ocean. The areas shaded in red would be underwater.
Predictions for temperature increases range from 1.8 degrees (best case) to 8 degrees Celsius by 2100 if no action is taken to slow the current growth in global CO2 emissions. The thermal expansion of the oceans due to increased sea temperatures can be estimated, but the key unknown is the rate at which the land ice in Greenland and Antarctica will melt. The water contained in those glaciers represents approximately 39 feet of sea level equivalent. Even a fraction of that melt would be catastrophic.
Scientists believe climate change will also affect the basic elements of life for people around the world such as access to water and food production. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms.
The ramifications of global climate change, while uncertain, paint a devastating portrait of an unsustainable world. What the United States does now is critical to eliminating or at least reducing the possibility of catastrophic outcomes for future generations.
Investments made today to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will reduce the cost of adaptation in the future. The notion of a no-cost, do-nothing option contradicts a key principle in business and life: probability diminishes in importance as the risk of disastrous consequences rises. If the world waits to act, climate change could be abrupt and impervious to any last-ditch, 11th-hour heroics.
Sounds like an accurate and legitimate climate concern message to me.
Greenhouse gas performance and commitment | Entergy
In 2001, Entergy partnered with Environmental Defense and became the first domestic utility to voluntarily enact a five-year plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 2000 levels. Entergy beat the original target by 23 percent while increasing sales 21 percent during the same period.
- In 2006, Entergy made a second commitment to stabilize CO2 emissions from its power plants and controllable purchased power at 20 percent below 2000 levels through 2010. Our cumulative CO2 emissions for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 were 122.9 million tons, 4 percent better than our stabilization goal of 127.7 million. Since we made our first stabilization commitment in 2001, we have emitted 327.4 million tons of CO2, which is nearly 17 percent below our cumulative stabilization goal for the eight-year period.
- Entergy established a $25 million Environmental Initiatives Fund with 80 percent dedicated to changes in Entergy-owned assets and 20 percent for the purchase of CO2 offsets (e.g., agricultural projects, geologic sequestration or enhanced oil recovery).
- Through the EIF, Entergy has made capital improvements on its existing fossil fleet, including coal plants, to improve efficiency. Improvements include increasing production from non-emitting nuclear units through capacity up-rates and increasing capacity factors, and increasing production from more efficient, low-emitting combined cycle gas turbines and combined heat and power resources.
While I wouldn't call this list profound, they are certainly productive steps in the right direction and demonstrate a sincere effort to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Many major corporations are headed in a similar direction.
IPCC is an EnviroMarxist organization that has a policy of redistributing wealth through Climate change.
(this post was made on a Climate neutral basis, the climate was not dramatically altered as a direct or indirect result of this post)
LOL! So I guess Entergy Corp is an EnviroMaxist organization as well! Tell me genius how wealth gets redistributed through climate change?
LOL! So I guess Entergy Corp is an EnviroMaxist organization as well! Tell me genius how wealth gets redistributed through climate change?
Cap & Trade.
Biggest securities fraud in over a century. Literally giving well connected looters license to sell nothing at an enormous price. Goldman Sachs (major contributor to Obama) can sell you indulgences (carbon credits) which allow you to sin (manufacture goods) with the blessing of the church. You can resell the indulgences, giving a fee to the issuing agency.
Like all religions, AGW is ultimately about stealing as much money as possible before getting caught. All fraud boils down to money - global warming is a prime example.
That's not even how it works.
Goldman Sachs would only be a broker of the sale.
And you may be surprised to know that energy companies do not own the atmosphere.
Hey, BTW, how much damage has SO2 and NxO cap and trade caused us?
That's not even how it works.
That's exactly how it works.
Goldman Sachs would only be a broker of the sale.
The sale of nothing for an enormous price.
No one is selling the "atmosphere." It is the selling of indulgences. It is good old fashioned fraud.
Hey, BTW, how much damage has SO2 and NxO cap and trade caused us?
Hard to say, it's all fraud. It's all a means of the well connected using the power of the state to steal from the productive.
A will give B nothing,
C brokers the deal, collecting a fat brokerage fee.
C bribes A to pass more laws requiring B to buy nothing at very high prices.
In a civil society, this type of corruption is frowned upon. But in the current kleptocracy, it's just the way things are done. The "skeptics" are just Martin Luther nailing the 95-theses to the door of your corrupt church.
AGW is nothing more than a vehicle for fraud and corruption. It's never been more than that.
That's why the science doesn't work and inquiry is met will attack. Real science depends on contrary views and challenges. But AGW isn't science, it's dogma and cannot afford legitimate falsification.
You know you're just making shit up as you go, right?
That is your game, I am simply relating the understandings and observations of the mainstream scientific perspective of this issue.
The dominant group in the study area as been caught manipulating data and methodology. They are a small group that runs the society where published papers are peer reviewed. In a most unscientific way, they have supressed opposing views.
They aren't selling "nothing" and they only get paid a comission.
A private company would sell the credit to another private comany and the credit allows the bearer to emit a certain amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Depending on the particular form of the system, the initial allowance may be auctioned by governent or it may be free.
I favor a free allocation system. It will have the same effect to the environment while not removing net dollars from the private industry.
The sale of a carbon credit represents the sale of the right to emit certain amount of CO2.
You do not go to hell for emitting CO2. Its not an indulgence.
Hard to say? Gee I thought you were the expert on the downsides of cap and trade systems - and here you're telling me its "hard to say" what negatives were caused by sulfer and nitrous cap and trade?
Really? So when Arrhenius published the first paper on the subjec over 100 years ago he was really just the leader of a massive worldwide conspiracy lasting multiple generations?
You gonna show us HOW the science doesn't work? Or is it HARD TO SAY?
Please show how it means anything different.
Higher levels of atmospheric CO2, counteract the other influences of warmer temperatures, additional water and nitrogenous fertilizers, reducing plant growth by roughly 48% (40/84) compared to these same conditions with lower levels of atmospheric CO2.
So hothouses are lies and worthless. lol
You are misreading the paragraph it doesn't say counteract at all. It says, "combined". Talk about poor reading comprehension and skills.
No, Flat, you do not understand the differance between cyclic carbon and sequestered carbon. Cyclic carbon is carbon that is already in the system, burning do not add it or remove it from the system. Sequestered carbon, in the form of petroleum, natural gas, or coal, is not presently in the system. When you burn it, you add it to the system. Now there are methods to re-sequester that carbon, but they are very expensive, and of doubtful success.
We have added carbon to the system to the point where we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere, and 150% more CH4. We have also added other GHGs, NOx, and many industrial gases that have no natural analogs, and are thousands of times as powerful of a GHG as CO2. In reality, we are well past the equivelant of a 450 ppm CO2 level. And we are starting to see the consequences right now.
Biomass is just another form of carbon when it is burnt and worthless when it is used to replace one form of carbon with another.
America will do what it has been doing since Reagan and sit on the sidelines with global warming and allow all the other countries like China to develop green energy sources and make all the profits while America uses global warming for nothing but campaign donations. In the mean time our children suffer from air born pollution and become weaker with each new generation all because the people world rather play politically correct instead of responsible free thinkers.
The Sierra Club is a load of geeks, riding their thumbs, on timber and nuker donations. You cannot get the Sierra Club, to advocate re-greening, for that reason. You cannot get Al Gore to support legal pot, since he likes to circle-jerk with wingnuts, for money, and they all will come to the foregone conclusion, to construct nuclear power plants.
Look at all the assholes, who don't know biomass digests CO2, when the plant media grows, and the CO2 is released, when it burns, IF it burns! Hemp makes a lot of food and durable products, in addition to fuels.
I had one wing-nut asshole at another site ask why natural gas isn't CO2-neutral. Coal and petroleum are former plant-matter, so they are like CO2-neutral biomass, but to burn THAT is ridiculous, since it can be stored, for later generations to use, wisely, when people are smarter and they burn petroleum cleaner and less egregiously, if at all.
Petroleum is not clean. Petroleum products like gasoline and pesticides are not for huffing, f-tards. Huffing breaks chromosomes. Got B and G cancer? You have been huffing pesticides and car exhaust. Sorry! Clean up.
Why are we not harvesting hemp and switchgrass, when we need to hedge, against CO2-accumulation, which is so bad, never mind how, carbonic acid can destroy the oceanic food chain? Fuck-tard the wing-nut and his pals need to write off their petroleum agendas.
The methane releases accelerate, the CO2 releases accelerate, the warming accelerates, and the acidification accelerates. People are letting this happen, even if fuck-tard people are not the only or primary source, of the pollution. Fuck-tard people will reform or die. No TV works, when you break it, me tardies.
I let the Sierras go in the 1990s, when a timber guy got on their board, and a lot of pro-nuclear media showed up, in and around the SC.You can ignore the majority of REAL environmental groups like the Sierra Club (not lawyers selling stuffed teddy bears) at your peril.. Biomass is NOT carbon neutral, displaces food crops, contributes NOx and SOx in the smokestack, and uses large amounts of other fuels and water to get it to the fire.. If you had a REAL alternative, one you wouldn't mind living right next to --- the fucktards might listen to you....
That's not even how it works.
That's exactly how it works.
The sale of nothing for an enormous price.
They aren't selling "nothing" and they only get paid a comission. A private company would sell the credit to another private comany and the credit allows the bearer to emit a certain amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Depending on the particular form of the system, the initial allowance may be auctioned by governent or it may be free. I favor a free allocation system. It will have the same effect to the environment while not removing net dollars from the private industry.
The sale of a carbon credit represents the sale of the right to emit certain amount of CO2. You do not go to hell for emitting CO2. Its not an indulgence.
Hard to say? Gee I thought you were the expert on the downsides of cap and trade systems - and here you're telling me its "hard to say" what negatives were caused by sulfer and nitrous cap and trade?
A will give B nothing,
C brokers the deal, collecting a fat brokerage fee.
C bribes A to pass more laws requiring B to buy nothing at very high prices.
In a civil society, this type of corruption is frowned upon. But in the current kleptocracy, it's just the way things are done. The "skeptics" are just Martin Luther nailing the 95-theses to the door of your corrupt church.
AGW is nothing more than a vehicle for fraud and corruption. It's never been more than that.
Really? So when Arrhenius published the first paper on the subjec over 100 years ago he was really just the leader of a massive worldwide conspiracy lasting multiple generations?
That's why the science doesn't work and inquiry is met will attack. Real science depends on contrary views and challenges. But AGW isn't science, it's dogma and cannot afford legitimate falsification.
You gonna show us HOW the science doesn't work? Or is it HARD TO SAY?
You claim that these have magical properties and only the wise can smell them.
Why are you obsessed with celebrity?Naturally, George Clooney and Matt Damon pontificate about the sweet aroma of the bugbear farts.
That there is no evidence that a bugbear exists is beside the point, the "kool kids" need to show how wise they are, how caring and in-tune, so they smell the farts without question, attacking and snubbing those who would be crass enough to question.
That's exactly how it works.
The sale of nothing for an enormous price.
They aren't selling "nothing" and they only get paid a comission. A private company would sell the credit to another private comany and the credit allows the bearer to emit a certain amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Depending on the particular form of the system, the initial allowance may be auctioned by governent or it may be free. I favor a free allocation system. It will have the same effect to the environment while not removing net dollars from the private industry.
The sale of a carbon credit represents the sale of the right to emit certain amount of CO2. You do not go to hell for emitting CO2. Its not an indulgence.
Hard to say? Gee I thought you were the expert on the downsides of cap and trade systems - and here you're telling me its "hard to say" what negatives were caused by sulfer and nitrous cap and trade?
Really? So when Arrhenius published the first paper on the subjec over 100 years ago he was really just the leader of a massive worldwide conspiracy lasting multiple generations?
That's why the science doesn't work and inquiry is met will attack. Real science depends on contrary views and challenges. But AGW isn't science, it's dogma and cannot afford legitimate falsification.
You gonna show us HOW the science doesn't work? Or is it HARD TO SAY?
IMHO -- the sale of credits was a WONDERFUL invention for REAL pollution because you could assess cost to the act of polluting.. Therefore the credits had economic meaning. With CO2 it's different. It's a fertilizer, it's cow farts, it's the fizz in your beer. REAL hard to find the actual transaction cost with something that doesn't cause measurable damage.
Should FARMERS and the soda industry and your Grandmother have to participate in carbon credits? Of course they SHOULD --- but with a wave of baton, the minions of Muldur exempted them from the fray -- giving LESS meaning to the remaining players in the marketplace. Grandma wasn't a huge contributor to NOx and SOx pollution, but we have to have a talk with her about her "carbon footprint"..
