Conservatives waking up to climate change

[PMZ]

Where would you be without Rush?

The entire country would be infinitely better off, including you.

But then you'd have nobody to default to when you can't win a debate.

Debating with Dittoheads is not possible because debating always carries the risk of learning. They are dead set against learning. What I do is show others what jerks Dittoheads are.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The entire country would be infinitely better off, including you.

But then you'd have nobody to default to when you can't win a debate.

Debating with Dittoheads is not possible because debating always carries the risk of learning. They are dead set against learning. What I do is show others what jerks Dittoheads are.

When you lose a debate, you're only showing your ignorance. That's all.

 

[S.J.]

The entire country would be infinitely better off, including you.

But then you'd have nobody to default to when you can't win a debate.

Debating with Dittoheads is not possible because debating always carries the risk of learning. They are dead set against learning. What I do is show others what jerks Dittoheads are.

What you DON'T do is make the case for MMGW.

 

[PMZ]

Anyone who doesn't fear the financial impact of insufficient energy knows nothing about the world economy.

That's about 90% of greens.

Anybody who hides from the financial impact of AGW knows nothing of science.

When you can break out, precisely, the financial impact of AGW in 2012, let me know.

TWR. It is being, and should be, actively pursued.

Excellent! You finally got one right.

Don't know any ''greens''. What I do know are people who understand the concept of sustainable energy, and those, like you, who don't.

If you make financial decisions based only on precision, two things can be said about you. You're conservative and poor.

So based on a cost that you can't quantify, you want us to waste 10s of trillions.
That makes you a green.

We have to move away from fossil fuels no matter what we do due to supply and demand. We've seen the beginning of monstrous costs for recovering from extreme weather and adapting to a new climate. We've hired the best science available to model the future impacts. That's what we have.

You have whining.

Not even close. 100 to zero with seconds on the clock.

 

[PMZ]

But then you'd have nobody to default to when you can't win a debate.

Debating with Dittoheads is not possible because debating always carries the risk of learning. They are dead set against learning. What I do is show others what jerks Dittoheads are.

What you DON'T do is make the case for MMGW.

That case was made long ago by IPCC. Your case was made even longer ago by Rush Limbaugh.

The limitation here is not the IPCC's case, it's your science knowledge. We can't help you with that as you're a committed member of the Dittohead Cult.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Don't know any ''greens''. What I do know are people who understand the concept of sustainable energy, and those, like you, who don't.

If you make financial decisions based only on precision, two things can be said about you. You're conservative and poor.

So based on a cost that you can't quantify, you want us to waste 10s of trillions.
That makes you a green.

We have to move away from fossil fuels no matter what we do due to supply and demand. We've seen the beginning of monstrous costs for recovering from extreme weather and adapting to a new climate. We've hired the best science available to model the future impacts. That's what we have.

You have whining.

Not even close. 100 to zero with seconds on the clock.

We have to move away from fossil fuels no matter what we do due to supply and demand.

Prove it.

We've seen the beginning of monstrous costs for recovering from extreme weather and adapting to a new climate.

Costs which you cannot quantify.

We've hired the best science available to model the future impacts.

LOL!

 

[PMZ]

So based on a cost that you can't quantify, you want us to waste 10s of trillions.
That makes you a green.

We have to move away from fossil fuels no matter what we do due to supply and demand. We've seen the beginning of monstrous costs for recovering from extreme weather and adapting to a new climate. We've hired the best science available to model the future impacts. That's what we have.

You have whining.

Not even close. 100 to zero with seconds on the clock.

We have to move away from fossil fuels no matter what we do due to supply and demand.

Prove it.

We've seen the beginning of monstrous costs for recovering from extreme weather and adapting to a new climate.

Costs which you cannot quantify.

We've hired the best science available to model the future impacts.

LOL!

Typical Dittohead response. We owe you proof. When we have it all and you have none.

Nobody owes you a thing Dittohead. Your ability to understand the science is completely irrelevant to every issue. Your problem solely.

Mankind is moving forward and you're wishing for backward.

I don't see any sympathy for your choice.

 

[Meister]

We have to move away from fossil fuels no matter what we do due to supply and demand. We've seen the beginning of monstrous costs for recovering from extreme weather and adapting to a new climate. We've hired the best science available to model the future impacts. That's what we have.

You have whining.

Not even close. 100 to zero with seconds on the clock.

We have to move away from fossil fuels no matter what we do due to supply and demand.

Prove it.

We've seen the beginning of monstrous costs for recovering from extreme weather and adapting to a new climate.

Costs which you cannot quantify.

We've hired the best science available to model the future impacts.

LOL!

Typical Dittohead response. We owe you proof. When we have it all and you have none.

Nobody owes you a thing Dittohead. Your ability to understand the science is completely irrelevant to every issue. Your problem solely.

Mankind is moving forward and you're wishing for backward.

I don't see any sympathy for your choice.

Really is sad to see you make your case with the name calling. It really shows you don't have much.
A person really can't be blaming Rush for this.

 

[mamooth]

Well, up in Yellowstone Park a number of years ago, the environmentalist Park Service refused to allow a forest fire to be controlled.

Up until now, it's been official crank conservative party line that liberals caused forest fires by _not_ letting fires burn, and thus letting fuel build up.

Has the cult changed its position, or have you gone renegade?

 

[Meister]

Well, up in Yellowstone Park a number of years ago, the environmentalist Park Service refused to allow a forest fire to be controlled.

Up until now, it's been official crank conservative party line that liberals caused forest fires by _not_ letting fires burn, and thus letting fuel build up.

Has the cult changed its position, or have you gone renegade?

She's using a fact for her premise, M.

 

[mamooth]

Below are just a couple...add to that the call to confine sceptics to mental institutions, to toss them in gulags etc.

Wow! A blog commenter and unknown professor. You really are desperate.

Meanwhile, you personally have supported the denialist campaign to get Dr. Mann tossed into a gulag for political offenses. Have you reconsidered that position, or are you still an proud climate Stalinist?

It's not just you. I've never encountered any denialist who has dared go against DerParteiRepublikkan and criticize the attempts by their political leaders to get AGW scientists jailed. They all want Dr. Mann and all climate scientists in jail, solely because the science contradicts their politics. In that fashion, almost all denialists are the intellectual heirs of Stalin.

Now, if any of them want to claim they're not an intellectual Stalinist, they need to start by condemning Cuccinelli for trying to put Dr. Mann in the gulag. But since TheParty absolutely forbids criticizing a leader of TheParty, that puts denialists in a pickle. Westwall is happy to criticize some unknown Brit, but don't ask him to condemn an American Republican who is running for governor now, because that's not going to happen.

 

[freedombecki]

Don't know any ''greens''. What I do know are people who understand the concept of sustainable energy, and those, like you, who don't.

If you make financial decisions based only on precision, two things can be said about you. You're conservative and poor.

So based on a cost that you can't quantify, you want us to waste 10s of trillions.
That makes you a green.

We have to move away from fossil fuels no matter what we do due to supply and demand. We've seen the beginning of monstrous costs for recovering from extreme weather and adapting to a new climate. We've hired the best science available to model the future impacts. That's what we have.

You have whining.

Not even close. 100 to zero with seconds on the clock.

You haven't been keeping up, PMZ. Recent estimates of the Bakken Formation are up from 4 billion barrels to 18 billion barrels of light, sweet crude. That plus what's in Alaska will keep us going without any oil from anywhere else for about 200 years. That also does not include the largest deposits already being taken in East Texas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and another large one in western Montana.

How can you call that seconds on the clock. And if we can keep Obama from giving away more gulf of Mexico oil and Alaska's oil-rich waters from former Communist countries, we'll have another couple of hundred years. Again, that doesn't include our largest deposits. We're the oil-richest nation on the planet, bar none, including Canada, which also has found record amounts beneath their end of the Rocky Mountains. We've barely touched the oil wealth under the state of Colorado. It's safe to say we have a thousand years worth of recoverable oil in the United States, if we work hard to bring it to the surface and use it wisely.

Our real challenge is to stretch it out to 3 thousand years by making it take up more efficiently through technology.

It will also give us sufficient time to find less expensive methods than killing all the fish and birds on the planet with tidal turbines that have already decimated ocean fish and mammals in parts of Europe, not to mention migratory birds being wiped out by wind-generation by those humongous windmills that are beginning to dominate European harbors, but don't necessarily deliver power at peak times on earth.

We have a long way to go and plenty of fuel if we are wise about its usage.

 

[S.J.]

Debating with Dittoheads is not possible because debating always carries the risk of learning. They are dead set against learning. What I do is show others what jerks Dittoheads are.

What you DON'T do is make the case for MMGW.

That case was made long ago by IPCC. Your case was made even longer ago by Rush Limbaugh.

The limitation here is not the IPCC's case, it's your science knowledge. We can't help you with that as you're a committed member of the Dittohead Cult.

The facts were covered up by the IPCC, and you haven't proven a damn thing. You simply parrot what they say, not understanding any of it, which is why you can't debate any facts, just name call. You're as much of a fraud as they are.

 

[PMZ]

We have to move away from fossil fuels no matter what we do due to supply and demand.

Prove it.

We've seen the beginning of monstrous costs for recovering from extreme weather and adapting to a new climate.

Costs which you cannot quantify.

We've hired the best science available to model the future impacts.

LOL!

Typical Dittohead response. We owe you proof. When we have it all and you have none.

Nobody owes you a thing Dittohead. Your ability to understand the science is completely irrelevant to every issue. Your problem solely.

Mankind is moving forward and you're wishing for backward.

I don't see any sympathy for your choice.

Really is sad to see you make your case with the name calling. It really shows you don't have much.
A person really can't be blaming Rush for this.

Rush invented the title of Dittohead to reflect how he viewed his audience. To me, I can't imagine a bigger insult. To the cult however repeating what Rush tells them to is high honor indeed.

If you are a Dittohead, and don't like the title, speak to Rush, not me. Oh that's right. When he's on the air nobody else talks.

He's the one behind the conservative whining that life is not fair because the world is demanding that we pay for what we did and benefitted from.

As far as I'm concerned, let them whine while responsible people look for solutions.

We don't need them to agree to anything. We don't need their approval or even understanding or acceptance of a thing.

To paraphrase one of their heroes. Marie Antoinette, let them eat their words.

 

[freedombecki]

Well, up in Yellowstone Park a number of years ago, the environmentalist Park Service refused to allow a forest fire to be controlled.

Up until now, it's been official crank conservative party line that liberals caused forest fires by _not_ letting fires burn, and thus letting fuel build up.

Has the cult changed its position, or have you gone renegade?

I lived there for 40 years, mamooth. I know what the Casper Star Tribune said, and I know people who didn't care for the decisions made to let it burn. The Park Service makes decisions, and that one decided on the advice of environmental thinking of that decade to let it burn and not stop it on purpose. This is not the same world it was 200 years ago. Europeans got rid of anything in their way--Passenger pigeons, buffalo, etc. They did it for their reasons of intolerance for bird guano that enriched soils and buffalo that was the main food source of native Americans, whom they sought to weaken in order to have less resistance to the expropriation of land for European settlers.

These things changed the green wealth of the soils, and burning is no longer something that is guaranteed to be restorative.

And the government was in charge back then and contracted people to kill pigeons and buffalo. A rotting corpse does not produce 5 tons a year of fertilizer, and decimation of hundreds of thousands of these creatures took away that restorative ability of the land to regenerate after fires.

There's nothing I can do about what the government programs did in the seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We have to move away from fossil fuels no matter what we do due to supply and demand. We've seen the beginning of monstrous costs for recovering from extreme weather and adapting to a new climate. We've hired the best science available to model the future impacts. That's what we have.

You have whining.

Not even close. 100 to zero with seconds on the clock.

We have to move away from fossil fuels no matter what we do due to supply and demand.

Prove it.

We've seen the beginning of monstrous costs for recovering from extreme weather and adapting to a new climate.

Costs which you cannot quantify.

We've hired the best science available to model the future impacts.

LOL!

Typical Dittohead response. We owe you proof. When we have it all and you have none.

Nobody owes you a thing Dittohead. Your ability to understand the science is completely irrelevant to every issue. Your problem solely.

Mankind is moving forward and you're wishing for backward.

I don't see any sympathy for your choice.

We owe you proof. When we have it all and you have none.

You've shown zero proof for the huge cost of AGW. Try again?

Mankind is moving forward and you're wishing for backward.

Expensive and unreliable energy, the liberal idea of moving forward.

 

[S.J.]

Has anyone else noticed how similar Saigon and PMZ sound? I'm just sayin'.

 

[westwall]

Each year we see forest fire devastation growing, the melting of glaciers increasing at alarming rates, heat indexes rising, and the intensity of storms increasing.

I have absolutely no faith in the governments of this planet taking any action that might remedy the situation. Scientist have not been able to tell us that we can take action which would stop the climate change. What seems to make sense is that the nations should work together to prepare for the disasters that are forthcoming, yet nothing is being done. Some of us labor under the false assumption that the nations of this planet will wake up to the danger. That is simply not going to happen.

The forest fires are due to mismanagement. The Arctic sea ice is 1.5 MILLION sq. km GREATER than last year. Heat indexes rise thanks to the Urban Heat Island effect. Rural weather stations are showing a temperature decrease. Storm intensity is actually DECREASING. We have seen fewer and fewer tornado's and of lower intensity than were seen in the 1940's.

You need to read some real science and not the propaganda you are focusing on....

And, once again, you are totally full of shit. At present, the arctic ice is at either the sixth or seventh lowest in the satellite record. And the Northeast Passage is open.

Muller proved that the Urban Heat Island effect is just another lie you denialists delight in.

What the insurance companies are seeing;

https://www.genevaassociation.org/media/620506/08072013_insurancenews_ocean-warming.pdf

8 July 2013
A “paradigm shift” in risk assessment methods is needed in the face of increasingly extreme weather events, according to the Geneva Association.
New evidence shows the world’s oceans have warmed significantly, the think tank’s latest report says.
“Given that energy from the ocean is the key driver of extreme events, ocean warming has effectively caused a shift towards a ‘new normal’ for a number of insurance-relevant hazards.”
This shift is “quasi-irreversible”, the association says. Even if greenhouse gas emissions stop tomorrow, ocean temperatures will continue to rise.
“In the non-stationary environment caused by ocean warming, traditional approaches, which are solely based on analysing historical data, increasingly fail to estimate today’s hazard probabilities,” lead author Falk Niehorster said.
“A paradigm shift from historic to predictive risk assessment methods is necessary.

Hey dude, I'm just quoting NASA. If you have a problem with the figures take it up with them.... Of course they are scientists and you quoted an INSURANCE COMPANY with a vested interest in your fraud...but hey who are we to question you and your motives!

 

[PMZ]

So based on a cost that you can't quantify, you want us to waste 10s of trillions.
That makes you a green.

We have to move away from fossil fuels no matter what we do due to supply and demand. We've seen the beginning of monstrous costs for recovering from extreme weather and adapting to a new climate. We've hired the best science available to model the future impacts. That's what we have.

You have whining.

Not even close. 100 to zero with seconds on the clock.

You haven't been keeping up, PMZ. Recent estimates of the Bakken Formation are up from 4 billion barrels to 18 billion barrels of light, sweet crude. That plus what's in Alaska will keep us going without any oil from anywhere else for about 200 years. That also does not include the largest deposits already being taken in East Texas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and another large one in western Montana.

How can you call that seconds on the clock. And if we can keep Obama from giving away more gulf of Mexico oil and Alaska's oil-rich waters from former Communist countries, we'll have another couple of hundred years. Again, that doesn't include our largest deposits. We're the oil-richest nation on the planet, bar none, including Canada, which also has found record amounts beneath their end of the Rocky Mountains. We've barely touched the oil wealth under the state of Colorado. It's safe to say we have a thousand years worth of recoverable oil in the United States, if we work hard to bring it to the surface and use it wisely.

Our real challenge is to stretch it out to 3 thousand years by making it take up more efficiently through technology.

It will also give us sufficient time to find less expensive methods than killing all the fish and birds on the planet with tidal turbines that have already decimated ocean fish and mammals in parts of Europe, not to mention migratory birds being wiped out by wind-generation by those humongous windmills that are beginning to dominate European harbors, but don't necessarily deliver power at peak times on earth.

We have a long way to go and plenty of fuel if we are wise about its usage.

Guess who wins by keeping us hooked on oil until the last drop is profited from?

Guess who loses after that?

Guess who pays for the consequences of AGW?

Guess who profits from fueled energy rather than sustainable energy.

Guess who pays for what you believe?

You are one of the suckers born every minute. I'm not going to pay for your gullibility.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"The fatal flaw in the climate models seems to come from one repeated assumption. The assumption is that positive feedbacks from greenhouse effects can exceed negative feedbacks. While this situation might actually exist over a given time period (and reflect temperature increases during that time period as a result) the average over the long term must net to zero. If it doesn't, then everything we have learned about physics over the last 1000 years is wrong, and perpetual motion is possible. If a climatologist and a physicist were to discuss the matter, the conversation might be as follows:

Climatologist: I have a system of undetermined complexity and undetermined composition, floating and spinning in space. It has a few internal but steady state and minor energy sources. An external energy source radiates 1365 watts per meter squared at it on a constant basis. What will happen?

Physicist: The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change.

Climatologist: Well what if I change the composition of the system?

Physicist: See above.

Climatologist: Perhaps you don't understand my question. The system has an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs energy in the same spectrum as the system is radiating. There are also quantities of carbon and oxygen that are combining to create more CO2 which absorbs more energy. Would this not raise the temperature of the system?

Physicist: There would be a temporary fluctuation in temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average... See above."

LOL.

That Big Yellow Thing in the Sky > my SUV

The Physicist and the Climatologist; FOLLOW THE MONEY!, by David M. Hoffer