A Broader Look At Climate Change

[CrusaderFrank]

All we know for certain is that the science is settled! America CO2 mutated and now DRIVES the climate

 

[ding]

Correct. AGW deniers are readily supplied with scientifically invalid and dishonest points of argument to slow or stop AGW mitigation measures…

You mean like how the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and has been cooling for 50 million years?

 

[Crick]

You mean like how the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and has been cooling for 50 million years?

You really seem as if you are trying to make people think you're stupid. And you've got me completely convinced.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm afraid that we do.

Really not, "Global Warming" fell away when your caveman cult couldn't explain the lack of actual warming. A decade ago your religion panicked - there was no warming.

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

www.dailymail.co.uk

WHAT TO DO?

Awww, just rebrand the cult "climate change"

I mean, the climate has been in a state of constant change for 4.7 billion years, it's a pretty safe bet there will continue to be change.

And speaking of abandoned strategies, no one attempts to use "global warming" -> "climate change" as any sort of argument any more. It's not as if it refutes the science now is it.

As if your cult had any relationship with scienc.. :lamo:

Considering that it is the world's scientists who came up with AGW and it is an overwhelming numbers of those scientists who have accepted AGW and urged the public to act in response, a charge of AGW being "anti-science" is simply laughable.

I spent a lot of years comparing "Climatology" with "Astrology," but have been convinced by quite a few astrology buffs that it has far more legitimacy in terms of actual science than the Gaia morons..

What religion?
What priests and how are they obtaining power?
How is the Gaia cult coming to rule?
What billions are being pilfered?
When did accepting mainstream science become a cult?
Fascism is a right-wing political philosophy.
Why would anyone want to destroy the American middle class? What goal would be served?

Big money in the climate fraud - but more important is the power - the control over the plebs.

Remember Crick, I tore you up on your foolish cult starting back at AWE.

{Ottmar Edenhofer, a former IPCC official, was quoted as saying, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”}

Climate change topic is a scam

Villager John Shewchuk, in a Letter to the Editor, offers a rebuttal to a previous Letter to the Editor about climate change.

www.villages-news.com

Your whole religion is a fraud intended to help secure absolute power by the fascist left.

Do EVs not provide private transportation?
Why would almost all the scientists on the planet accept a theory that had no semblance of "scientific facts" behind it?

Hard to drive an EV if you can't charge it.

Californians Told Not to Charge Electric Cars Days After Gas Car Sales Ban

The California Air Resources Board recently approved a rule to require all new cars sold in California to be free of greenhouse gas emissions by 2035.

www.newsweek.com

The goal is to crush the middle class. It always was. My assumption is that you support that goal rather than being so incredibly stupid as not to grasp that it is the goal.

 

[Crick]

"Seeks to" and for the most part succeeds.

Aside from the prostitution of a once orderly scientific community, the reaction is interesting. The right mistrusts the so-called 'scientists' and the left worships them. Subsequently the right sees the left as gullible and the left calls the right "deniers".

I call deniers "deniers". I don't give a hoot who they vote for.

 

[toobfreak]

It's still impossible to view climate change in its totality, the scale is too vast, the millions of small changes taking place too numerous to fully grasp. This graphic only scratches the surface.

And yet all of your leftwing heroes you worship promoting this garbage are still all buying up oceanfront property!

Let us know when they start moving inland to safer locations!

 

[Uncensored2008]

I call deniers "deniers". I don't give a hoot who they vote for.

I call grant whores "grant whores." I don't give a shit what fraud they sell out for.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And yet all of your leftwing heroes you worship promoting this garbage are still all buying up oceanfront property!

Let us know when they start moving inland to safer locations!

Funny isn't it?

Bathhouse Barry is a "true believer," yet he built the mansion in his Martha's Vineyard Estate mere inches from the water. He seems unconcerned with the rising ocean that the cult said would have Manhattan under 10 feet of water by the year 2005....

And then there is the mansion at Barry's opulent estate in Hawaii - he's actually building that one on Stilts out into the ocean. Again not seeming to worry about the disaster Deacon Crick and the Church of Gaia and the immaculate glowbull warming's dire prophecies.

Yeah, I know that 4,000 plus failed prophecies makes it hard to take Crick and his silly cult seriously, but Obama always claimed to be a "true believer.."

 

[toobfreak]

He seems unconcerned with the rising ocean that the cult said would have Manhattan under 10 feet of water by the year 2005....

Maybe Barry figures that if the tidewaters rise too close to his front door, he'll have AOC over to drill a hole in the sand to let the water run out back into the ocean!

 

[Crick]

Really not, "Global Warming" fell away when your caveman cult couldn't explain the lack of actual warming. A decade ago your religion panicked - there was no warming.

This is what the data look like.

I'm afraid it is YOUR religion that is panicking about no scientific support for your claims. If my side is panicking, it's at the prospect of the disaster to which we're headed due to the ignorance and cowardice of fools like you.

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

www.dailymail.co.uk

WHAT TO DO?

Awww, just rebrand the cult "climate change"

I hate to disappoint you, but I don't often go to the Daily Mail for science.

I mean, the climate has been in a state of constant change for 4.7 billion years, it's a pretty safe bet there will continue to be change.

That is the response of a fool. That it has changed before is utterly irrelevant. It never changes without cause and the only identifiable cause for this warming is the greenhouse effect operating on human GHG emissions.

As if your cult had any relationship with scienc.. :lamo:

As pointed out earlier, AGW is the product of science and thoroughly supported by science. Your opinion is not. Period.

I spent a lot of years comparing "Climatology" with "Astrology," but have been convinced by quite a few astrology buffs that it has far more legitimacy in terms of actual science than the Gaia morons..

Revealing that you pay a lot of attention to astrology is not the way to convince anyone here that we should take your opinion on science issues.

Big money in the climate fraud - but more important is the power - the control over the plebs.

What power? What "plebs"?

Remember Crick, I tore you up on your foolish cult starting back at AWE.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I doubt you could "tear me up" guessing how many fingers you have behind your back over the internet.

{Ottmar Edenhofer, a former IPCC official, was quoted as saying, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”}

That quote is getting a little long in the tooth. And it never had any relevance in any case. Why don't you try attacking the science here. THAT is what justifies green policy decisions

Your whole religion is a fraud intended to help secure absolute power by the fascist left.

There is no such thing as the fascist left. You, personally, are convincing evidence of that.

Hard to drive an EV if you can't charge it.

The proportion of our electricity supply being provided by wind and solar is still growing by leaps and bounds. The biggest power failures in this country for the last several years have been fossil fuel fired plants. Wind and solar has been extremely reliable.

Californians Told Not to Charge Electric Cars Days After Gas Car Sales Ban

The California Air Resources Board recently approved a rule to require all new cars sold in California to be free of greenhouse gas emissions by 2035.

www.newsweek.com

The goal is to crush the middle class. It always was. My assumption is that you support that goal rather than being so incredibly stupid as not to grasp that it is the goal.

I am part of the middle class. Why would I want to destroy it? Why would anyone of any political persuasion want to destroy it? Explain. If nothing else, explain why you think anyone would want to destroy the middle class. What does that even mean? Kill them all? Make them all rich? Make them all poor? Now I have heard that the rich would like to do that - more workers willing to break their backs for pennies. But I don't buy that either, and I'm definitely not part of the "the rich". So, what the fuck are you thinking?

 

[BackAgain]

It's self explanatory. Figure it out.

McNumbnuts doesn’t have a point.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is what the data look like.
View attachment 704999
I'm afraid it is YOUR religion that is panicking about no scientific support for your claims. If my side is panicking, it's at the prospect of the disaster to which we're headed due to the ignorance and cowardice of fools like you.



I hate to disappoint you, but I don't often go to the Daily Mail for science.


That is the response of a fool. That it has changed before is utterly irrelevant. It never changes without cause and the only identifiable cause for this warming is the greenhouse effect operating on human GHG emissions.


As pointed out earlier, AGW is the product of science and thoroughly supported by science. Your opinion is not. Period.


Revealing that you pay a lot of attention to astrology is not the way to convince anyone here that we should take your opinion on science issues.


What power? What "plebs"?


I think you have me confused with someone else. I doubt you could "tear me up" guessing how many fingers you have behind your back over the internet.


That quote is getting a little long in the tooth. And it never had any relevance in any case. Why don't you try attacking the science here. THAT is what justifies green policy decisions


There is no such thing as the fascist left. You, personally, are convincing evidence of that.


The proportion of our electricity supply being provided by wind and solar is still growing by leaps and bounds. The biggest power failures in this country for the last several years have been fossil fuel fired plants. Wind and solar has been extremely reliable.


I am part of the middle class. Why would I want to destroy it? Why would anyone of any political persuasion want to destroy it? Explain. If nothing else, explain why you think anyone would want to destroy the middle class. What does that even mean? Kill them all? Make them all rich? Make them all poor? Now I have heard that the rich would like to do that - more workers willing to break their backs for pennies. But I don't buy that either, and I'm definitely not part of the "the rich". So, what the fuck are you thinking?

Remember Crick, I'm not here to debate you, I'm here to MOCK you as the fool you are.

{The proportion of our electricity supply being provided by wind and solar is still growing by leaps and bounds. }

Ayup, it's going to get all the way up to 5% in no time.

Solar generation was 3% of U.S. electricity in 2020, but we project it will be 20% by 2050 - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

 

[Crick]

Remember Crick, I'm not here to debate you, I'm here to MOCK you as the fool you are.

{The proportion of our electricity supply being provided by wind and solar is still growing by leaps and bounds. }

Ayup, it's going to get all the way up to 5% in no time.

Solar generation was 3% of U.S. electricity in 2020, but we project it will be 20% by 2050 - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

Gosh, mocking sounds like fun

"Up to 5% in no time"???
In the US: Renewables made up nearly 20 percent of utility-scale U.S. electricity generation in 2020, with the bulk coming from hydropower (7.3 percent) and wind power (8.4 percent). Solar generation (including distributed), which made up 3.3 percent of total U.S. generation in 2020, is the fastest-growing electricity source.
In Europe: At EU level, the share of renewable energy in energy consumption increased steadily from 9.6 % in 2004 to 22.1 % in 2020, thus exceeding the EU target of 20 % renewables by 2020.
Worldwide:

So, I think you missed.

PS: If you want to mock me, you're going to have to show I'm wrong. So far... I'm not too worried.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Gosh, mocking sounds like fun

"Up to 5% in no time"???
In the US: Renewables made up nearly 20 percent of utility-scale U.S. electricity generation in 2020, with the bulk coming from hydropower (7.3 percent) and wind power (8.4 percent). Solar generation (including distributed), which made up 3.3 percent of total U.S. generation in 2020, is the fastest-growing electricity source.
In Europe: At EU level, the share of renewable energy in energy consumption increased steadily from 9.6 % in 2004 to 22.1 % in 2020, thus exceeding the EU target of 20 % renewables by 2020.
Worldwide:
View attachment 705091

So, I think you missed.

PS: If you want to mock me, you're going to have to show I'm wrong. So far... I'm not too worried.

Ohh, look at you lie..

I said and cited "solar," not "renewables" which is mostly hydroelectric.

Try again, but tell the truth this time - I know, you have your goddess and truth is an undue burden for you, the faithful.

 

[Crick]

Ohh, look at you lie..

I said and cited "solar," not "renewables" which is mostly hydroelectric.

Try again, but tell the truth this time - I know, you have your goddess and truth is an undue burden for you, the faithful.

Oh, look at YOU lie. You said: "The proportion of our electricity supply being provided by wind and solar is still growing by leaps and bounds. Ayup, it's going to get all the way up to 5% in no time."

Do you think solar is going to stop expanding when it is now cheaper per kWh than any of the fossil fuels?

 

[ding]

You really seem as if you are trying to make people think you're stupid. And you've got me completely convinced.

Another textbook example of the dunning effect.

 

[ding]

AGW will be proven wrong within 30 years by colder temperatures because climate fluctuations are a hallmark of our bipolar glaciated world.

 

[martybegan]

Ohh, look at you lie..

I said and cited "solar," not "renewables" which is mostly hydroelectric.

Try again, but tell the truth this time - I know, you have your goddess and truth is an undue burden for you, the faithful.

And don't many lefties want to remove dams to let rivers "run free"?

 

[martybegan]

Oh, look at YOU lie. You said: "The proportion of our electricity supply being provided by wind and solar is still growing by leaps and bounds. Ayup, it's going to get all the way up to 5% in no time."

Do you think solar is going to stop expanding when it is now cheaper per kWh than any of the fossil fuels?

That "cheaper" thing doesn't include the needed battery storage OR the need for "quick turn on" sources like natural gas plants to cover for when the sun isn't out.

 

[Crick]

That "cheaper" thing doesn't include the needed battery storage OR the need for "quick turn on" sources like natural gas plants to cover for when the sun isn't out.

One is cheaper despite everything you can throw at it because it will NEVER need fuel whereas your favored tech, despite everything nice you can say about it, will ALWAYS require fuel. And, of course, you are ignoring the value of zero emissions because, like all AGW deniers, you're not very bright.