Conservatives waking up to climate change

[westwall]

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.

PMZ and all the cultists remind me of the Celtic myth of the "Champions Portion" where Leary and Conall are constantly bested by Cuchulain in every test. No matter how many times he bests them they just ignore it, or claim he had an unfair advantage, etc. etc. etc.

Just as they got their comeuppance so too will the cultists....

 

[westwall]

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.

Yet you want US to pay WAY more for your gullibility..... So you're basically an asshole little child wailing for his mommy to buy him a new toy...got it.. Don't want to deal with it....or with little children like you...

 

[whitehall]

An Op-Ed from the freaking New Zealand Herald News? Lefties must be desperate.

 

[PMZ]

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.

PMZ and all the cultists remind me of the Celtic myth of the "Champions Portion" where Leary and Conall are constantly bested by Cuchulain in every test. No matter how many times he bests them they just ignore it, or claim he had an unfair advantage, etc. etc. etc.

Just as they got their comeuppance so too will the cultists....

Don't know much about Celtic myths. Just science. It tells us that it's time to move on. Rush tells us it's time to do nothing. He's been wrong about most everything and science has been right about most everything. Not a hard decision for me.

Those of you who rode the Rush horse for so long that you can't give it up, keep riding into the past. We simply don't need you for anything.

Catch up when you can.

 

[westwall]

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.

PMZ and all the cultists remind me of the Celtic myth of the "Champions Portion" where Leary and Conall are constantly bested by Cuchulain in every test. No matter how many times he bests them they just ignore it, or claim he had an unfair advantage, etc. etc. etc.

Just as they got their comeuppance so too will the cultists....

Don't know much about Celtic myths. Just science. It tells us that it's time to move on. Rush tells us it's time to do nothing. He's been wrong about most everything and science has been right about most everything. Not a hard decision for me.

Those of you who rode the Rush horse for so long that you can't give it up, keep riding into the past. We simply don't need you for anything.

Catch up when you can.

You don't know anything about anything. The level of your ignorance is astounding.

 

[freedombecki]

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.

Projecting doesn't make it so.

 

[PMZ]

PMZ and all the cultists remind me of the Celtic myth of the "Champions Portion" where Leary and Conall are constantly bested by Cuchulain in every test. No matter how many times he bests them they just ignore it, or claim he had an unfair advantage, etc. etc. etc.

Just as they got their comeuppance so too will the cultists....

Don't know much about Celtic myths. Just science. It tells us that it's time to move on. Rush tells us it's time to do nothing. He's been wrong about most everything and science has been right about most everything. Not a hard decision for me.

Those of you who rode the Rush horse for so long that you can't give it up, keep riding into the past. We simply don't need you for anything.

Catch up when you can.

You don't know anything about anything. The level of your ignorance is astounding.

This is as informative as most Rush based posts. Of course it says nothing but that's all that they have. Nothing. They don't like today's world. Fine. Ignore them. Tomorrow will come anyway. Give them the past. It's over. The future is a liberal concept.

 

[S.J.]

Here ya go, PMZ. This is REALLY what it's all about, isn't it?

 

[PMZ]

Here ya go, PMZ. This is REALLY what it's all about, isn't it?

It absutely is what it's all about. Are you kidding me? Rush dragged you and your friends into the weeds a couple of decades ago and you've never found your way out. Suckers all.

 

[westwall]

Don't know much about Celtic myths. Just science. It tells us that it's time to move on. Rush tells us it's time to do nothing. He's been wrong about most everything and science has been right about most everything. Not a hard decision for me.

Those of you who rode the Rush horse for so long that you can't give it up, keep riding into the past. We simply don't need you for anything.

Catch up when you can.

You don't know anything about anything. The level of your ignorance is astounding.

This is as informative as most Rush based posts. Of course it says nothing but that's all that they have. Nothing. They don't like today's world. Fine. Ignore them. Tomorrow will come anyway. Give them the past. It's over. The future is a liberal concept.

Oooooooh, do you do the 3rd grade playground circuit too? Here's a hint for you argue based on fact. Use any source that is accurate otherwise expect to get bitchslapped over and over again. You and the rest of the clone army are the most scientifically crippled group I have ever seen.

Insults won't drive us away, in fact they amuse me and make me enjoy the destruction of your points even more and more to the point every time you open your trap like this you lose.... In just this thread alone I have received 5 PM's from people who now accept the POV of science and scientists.... they no longer adhere to the political BS of the IPCC....

I thank you for providing such simple arguments to destroy. I couldn't have asked for a better target...

 

[PMZ]

You don't know anything about anything. The level of your ignorance is astounding.

This is as informative as most Rush based posts. Of course it says nothing but that's all that they have. Nothing. They don't like today's world. Fine. Ignore them. Tomorrow will come anyway. Give them the past. It's over. The future is a liberal concept.

Oooooooh, do you do the 3rd grade playground circuit too? Here's a hint for you argue based on fact. Use any source that is accurate otherwise expect to get bitchslapped over and over again. You and the rest of the clone army are the most scientifically crippled group I have ever seen.

Insults won't drive us away, in fact they amuse me and make me enjoy the destruction of your points even more and more to the point every time you open your trap like this you lose.... In just this thread alone I have received 5 PM's from people who now accept the POV of science and scientists.... they no longer adhere to the political BS of the IPCC....

I thank you for providing such simple arguments to destroy. I couldn't have asked for a better target...

If you find the truth insulting, well, take it to heart. That means that you're on the wrong path. Wake up. Smell the coffee.

Staying where you are when the evidence is so compelling to move on is stupid.

Don't be stupid.

 

[PMZ]

If you think that the stupidest man on the face of the earth is more likely to be right than the largest assembly of competent scientists ever assembled is, you are just too nuts to deal with.

 

[whitehall]

We are not in a time in history when updated 16th century technology can replace fossil fuel. The radical left seems reluctant to address claims that windmills are killing endangered migratory birds and that toxic heavy metals used in battery technology might be really bad for the environment in the long run. The bottom line is that the concept of global warming seems to be the last ditch effort by the radical left to ruin the last great super power on the globe.

 

[freedombecki]

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.

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

Why, the American people win.

Guess who loses after that?

You are demanding that mere mortals decide the fate of mankind's energy pursuits over a thousand years away from the present?

Here's a question you did not ask: what happens when green companies make bad decisions based on regurgitating errors of the past two decades as viable in the business world? And here's a partial answer:

Solyndra: Pay Some Investors Before Taxpayers In Solar Flame Out - Forbes

Guess who pays for the consequences of AGW?

The AGW hoax was discredited by scientists who emailed many other scientists to obfuscate data so they could procure foundation money for their work by making global warming seem a threat to the world. The issue is still being debated with no clear winner or loser unless one acknowledges the falsification of data is a red flag against the truth.

Exaggeration to the point of lying makes conventional and honest businesspeople and the best investors very, very uneasy. Demanding that the American people fork over a billion here and a billion there, and a few more billion here, there, and everywhere with absolutely zero accounting or consequences is a bad idea.

Guess who profits from fueled energy rather than sustainable energy.

Energy from fuel is sustainable and affordable. It's a popular investment that provides high-paying jobs and good returns to those who invest in it.

Energy sources already known to be unreliable are far, far from sustainable, and some of them are downright hazardous to health of species which rely on sonar and other specialized survival mechanisms for moving through water or air.

Guess who pays for what you believe?

Me, myself, and I.

You are one of the suckers born every minute.

Hardly. You're the unreferenced attacker.

I'm not going to pay for your gullibility.

I'm not going to pay for yours.

 

[PMZ]

We are not in a time in history when updated 16th century technology can replace fossil fuel. The radical left seems reluctant to address claims that windmills are killing endangered migratory birds and that toxic heavy metals used in battery technology might be really bad for the environment in the long run. The bottom line is that the concept of global warming seems to be the last ditch effort by the radical left to ruin the last great super power on the globe.

I find nothing informed in your entire post. The question is sustainable rather than temporary energy sources. The question is energy sources with no consequences versus those with unaffordable consequences. The answer is fueless sources.

Tell us why temporary sources with expensive consequences are better.

 

[Meister]

If you think that the stupidest man on the face of the earth is more likely to be right than the largest assembly of competent scientists ever assembled is, you are just too nuts to deal with.

The scientists are jumping the AGW ship.
The APCC cherry picked the papers they wanted to use in the study, the rest of the papers to the contrary were never used. true story

 

[PMZ]

"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

I don't know who created the words that you ascribed to a physicist, but believe me, he wasn't one.

 

[PMZ]

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.

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

Why, the American people win.

Guess who loses after that?

You are demanding that mere mortals decide the fate of mankind's energy pursuits over a thousand years away from the present?

Here's a question you did not ask: what happens when green companies make bad decisions based on regurgitating errors of the past two decades as viable in the business world? And here's a partial answer:

Solyndra: Pay Some Investors Before Taxpayers In Solar Flame Out - Forbes

Guess who pays for the consequences of AGW?

The AGW hoax was discredited by scientists who emailed many other scientists to obfuscate data so they could procure foundation money for their work by making global warming seem a threat to the world. The issue is still being debated with no clear winner or loser unless one acknowledges the falsification of data is a red flag against the truth.

Exaggeration to the point of lying makes conventional and honest businesspeople and the best investors very, very uneasy. Demanding that the American people fork over a billion here and a billion there, and a few more billion here, there, and everywhere with absolutely zero accounting or consequences is a bad idea.

Guess who profits from fueled energy rather than sustainable energy.

Energy from fuel is sustainable and affordable. It's a popular investment that provides high-paying jobs and good returns to those who invest in it.

Energy sources already known to be unreliable are far, far from sustainable, and some of them are downright hazardous to health of species which rely on sonar and other specialized survival mechanisms for moving through water or air.

Guess who pays for what you believe?

Me, myself, and I.

You are one of the suckers born every minute.

Hardly. You're the unreferenced attacker.

I'm not going to pay for your gullibility.

I'm not going to pay for yours.

Your position, of course, assumes that scientists are liars, and politicians never do.

And also business people work to optimize the big picture, not just their business.

And that people who don't know science can guess at it with better reliability than the scientific process yields.

But, despite those massive flaws in your logic, you believe that you and Rush are right.

You are a scammers dream.

 

[PMZ]

One of the realities that deniers have to rigorously ignore is the fact that we were smart enough to harvest the least expensive to extract and process, highest quality, lowest environmental impact fossil fuels first, leaving the dregs to future generations. Of course big oil treats all reserves as equal. And they are to them. The profit per BTU is the same, the cost increases are just passed on to consumers who aren't smart enough to see a different future.

And all of the Dittoheads said amen.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One of the realities that deniers have to rigorously ignore is the fact that we were smart enough to harvest the least expensive to extract and process, highest quality, lowest environmental impact fossil fuels first, leaving the dregs to future generations. Of course big oil treats all reserves as equal. And they are to them. The profit per BTU is the same, the cost increases are just passed on to consumers who aren't smart enough to see a different future.

And all of the Dittoheads said amen.

One of the realities that deniers have to rigorously ignore is the fact that we were smart enough to harvest the least expensive to extract and process, highest quality, lowest environmental impact fossil fuels first, leaving the dregs to future generations.

Where has anyone denied that? Link?

When you get a chance, show us how much the A portion of GW cost us last year.
To the nearest billion.

I want to make sure we're getting our moneys worth for the $80 trillion you feel we should spend.