What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

"Fingerprint" of Greenland ice melt seen in satellite sea level data

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
19,111
Reaction score
3,012
Points
290
Location
N/A
Todd, I'd like you to read the whole thing of course, but I especially want you to think of things I've said to you about the varying cost of taking care of problems earlier rather than later, as you read the very last sentence.

 

1srelluc

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2021
Messages
17,658
Reaction score
23,743
Points
2,288
Location
Shenandoah Valley of Virginia
Oh look, another "alarming prediction".....Who's getting paid for that one?
 

excalibur

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
10,798
Reaction score
20,050
Points
2,290
Last edited:

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
45,118
Reaction score
40,736
Points
3,605
Location
Arizona
*Yawn*

More doomer global warming bullshit.

News flash, there have been times when zero ice existed on Earth. Humans will adapt and build beachfront property elsewhere.
 

MisterBeale

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
46,430
Reaction score
37,528
Points
3,605
Story #3, even the banks are starting to find these ESG metrics are bullshit. . . .

False Flag Planted In Nord Stream Pipeline - #NewWorldNextWeek​

Interview 1750 - New World Next Week with James Evan Pilato

Corbett • 09/29/2022
This week on the New World Next Week: Nord Stream blows up after Biden and Nuland threaten it; the Canadian government scraps their ArriveCAN app tyranny...for now; and the GFANZ alliance is failing forward into global governmental regulation.

Story #1: EU Chief Calls Nord Stream Attack "Sabotage," Warns Of "Strongest Possible Response"

Story #2: ArriveCan App Finally Scrapped In Canada

Story #3: Former Bank of England Governor Carney’s Net Zero Asset Alliance Crumbling
 

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
5,932
Reaction score
2,067
Points
315

False Flag Planted In Nord Stream Pipeline - #NewWorldNextWeek​

Interview 1750 - New World Next Week with James Evan Pilato

Corbett • 09/29/2022
This week on the New World Next Week: Nord Stream blows up after Biden and Nuland threaten it;

James Corbett​

James Corbett is an Anarcho-capitalist/Anarcho-voluntarist YouTuber, conspiracy theorist.
He performs amateur analysis of politics conspiracy theories and purported propaganda in The Corbett Report, YouTube, Global Research TV, RT news and other shows and websites such as the Boiling Frogs Post, NewsBud, 5G summit and other such occasional events, despite having no credentials in any of these fields,
such as 9/11 and the JFK assassination being false flag attacks, government mind control, water fluoridation and chemtrails lowering IQ to make it harder to wake up sheeple, the “Clinton Body Count”,
5G sends toxic EMF, Bill Gates is a Nazi eugenicist, GMOs cause tumours, Climate change is a hoax, vaccines never worked and are also a hoax, moon landing is hoax,[1] eugenics is still alive, America is secretly a socialist country,[2] pizzagate is real,[3] Trump wants to establish a New World Order, among many, many others.



`
 

MisterBeale

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
46,430
Reaction score
37,528
Points
3,605

James Corbett​

James Corbett is an Anarcho-capitalist/Anarcho-voluntarist YouTuber, conspiracy theorist.
He performs amateur analysis of politics conspiracy theories and purported propaganda in The Corbett Report, YouTube, Global Research TV, RT news and other shows and websites such as the Boiling Frogs Post, NewsBud, 5G summit and other such occasional events, despite having no credentials in any of these fields,
such as 9/11 and the JFK assassination being false flag attacks, government mind control, water fluoridation and chemtrails lowering IQ to make it harder to wake up sheeple, the “Clinton Body Count”,
5G sends toxic EMF, Bill Gates is a Nazi eugenicist, GMOs cause tumours, Climate change is a hoax, vaccines never worked and are also a hoax, moon landing is hoax,[1] eugenics is still alive, America is secretly a socialist country,[2] pizzagate is real,[3] Trump wants to establish a New World Order, among many, many others.



`

iu



He's just reporting news, you don't like. You are doing the classic, "attack the messenger," because you don't like the message. Try a new gig buddy.

Major U.S. banks threaten to leave Mark Carney's climate alliance - FT​

2022-09-21T075338Z_1_UJ7_RTRLXPP_2_LYNXPACKAGER.JPG


1664522784582.png
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
84,483
Reaction score
25,791
Points
2,250
Location
Chicago
Todd, I'd like you to read the whole thing of course, but I especially want you to think of things I've said to you about the varying cost of taking care of problems earlier rather than later, as you read the very last sentence.


You never answered my question about investing to insulate every building in the US.
Is a bad investment made better by making it earlier rather than later?
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
19,111
Reaction score
3,012
Points
290
Location
N/A
You never answered my question about investing to insulate every building in the US.
Is a bad investment made better by making it earlier rather than later?
Todd, I'm not stupid and you know this. Obviously there are good investments and bad investments, though the actual nature of any investment is not fully knowable in advance. You think the mitigation measures recommended by the IPCC and others are a bad investment. I disagree. I think like almost any problem, the earlier one deals with it, the more economically it can be dealt with. Let's look at your hypothetical. Which would have been cheaper and more effective: insulating every structure in US at the time of their construction or going back afterward and adding it? Obviously, the former. Argue the proper question with me Todd. The cost of dealing with the effects of global warming will be monstrous. The cost of having moved away from fossil fuels when first recommended (say, twenty years ago) would have been a tiny fraction of what we will now end up paying. And the longer we put it off, the more it will cost us. This is a truism and I don't understand an intelligent person such as yourself arguing against it.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
84,483
Reaction score
25,791
Points
2,250
Location
Chicago
Todd, I'm not stupid and you know this. Obviously there are good investments and bad investments, though the actual nature of any investment is not fully knowable in advance. You think the mitigation measures recommended by the IPCC and others are a bad investment. I disagree. I think like almost any problem, the earlier one deals with it, the more economically it can be dealt with. Let's look at your hypothetical. Which would have been cheaper and more effective: insulating every structure in US at the time of their construction or going back afterward and adding it? Obviously, the former. Argue the proper question with me Todd. The cost of dealing with the effects of global warming will be monstrous. The cost of having moved away from fossil fuels when first recommended (say, twenty years ago) would have been a tiny fraction of what we will now end up paying. And the longer we put it off, the more it will cost us. This is a truism and I don't understand an intelligent person such as yourself arguing against it.

Obviously there are good investments and bad investments, though the actual nature of any investment is not fully knowable in advance.

Do you think AOC's "idea" to insulate every building in America is a good or bad investment?

The cost of dealing with the effects of global warming will be monstrous.

Tell your buddies to support fracking and nuclear.

The cost of having moved away from fossil fuels when first recommended (say, twenty years ago) would have been a tiny fraction of what we will now end up paying.

But the greens are against the things that will give us cheap, reliable energy.

And the longer we put it off, the more it will cost us.

Or we could wait until someone else comes up with cheap, reliable renewable energy and buy it from them.

This is a truism and I don't understand an intelligent person such as yourself arguing against it.

Germany is paying triple what we pay for electricity, now, have they stopped global warming yet?
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
19,111
Reaction score
3,012
Points
290
Location
N/A
Obviously there are good investments and bad investments, though the actual nature of any investment is not fully knowable in advance.

Do you think AOC's "idea" to insulate every building in America is a good or bad investment?

You are going to have to provide more information. If you're talking about the suggestion that the government provide incentives for homeowners to improve insulation, I think that is probably a good investment.

The cost of dealing with the effects of global warming will be monstrous.

Tell your buddies to support fracking and nuclear.

Fracking doesn't help. Replacing coal with natural gas provides a small benefit, but a better investment is to replace coal with non-emitting technologies.

The cost of having moved away from fossil fuels when first recommended (say, twenty years ago) would have been a tiny fraction of what we will now end up paying.

But the greens are against the things that will give us cheap, reliable energy.
Once again, we run into the dilemma that you see no value in non-emitting energy technologies while I do and thus you and I assign different values to these things. You also add "cheap and reliable" in an attempt to rule out alternative technologies but, in fact, fossil fuel-powered technologies are getting more and more expensive and photovoltaics have already beaten them in cost per kWh.

And the longer we put it off, the more it will cost us.

Or we could wait until someone else comes up with cheap, reliable renewable energy and buy it from them.

Waiting is what we cannot do. If such a development is on the horizon, it will come whether we act now or later. But later is guaranteed to cost us more, particularly when you're simply waiting for pie in the sky. You're smarter than that.

This is a truism and I don't understand an intelligent person such as yourself arguing against it.

Germany is paying triple what we pay for electricity, now, have they stopped global warming yet?

They've helped more than we have.

Todd, you KNOW the arguments you've got to bring here - pardon my French - suck. There's a reason for that. You're on the wrong side, dude.
 
Last edited:

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
84,483
Reaction score
25,791
Points
2,250
Location
Chicago
You are going to have to provide more information. If you're talking about the suggestion that the government provide incentives for homeowners to improve insulation, I think that is probably a good investment.

Incentives? Didn't the GND pay for it 100%?
Is a $10,000 investment that saves $200 a year good today?
What if you did it 20 years ago? Still good? Better?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
84,483
Reaction score
25,791
Points
2,250
Location
Chicago
Fracking doesn't help. Replacing coal with natural gas provides a small benefit, but a better investment is to replace coal with non-emitting technologies.

Small benefit? Isn't that the main reason for the huge decline in US CO2 over the last 20 years?

You can replace the coal with "non-emitting technologies" but you still can't replace the reliability.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
84,483
Reaction score
25,791
Points
2,250
Location
Chicago
Once again, we run into the dilemma that you see no value in non-emitting energy technologies while I do and thus you and I assign different values to these things. You also add "cheap and reliable" in an attempt to rule out alternative technologies but, in fact, fossil fuel-powered technologies are getting more and more expensive and photovoltaics have already beaten them in cost per kWh.

Once again, we run into the dilemma that you see no value in non-emitting energy technologies while I do and thus you and I assign different values to these things.

There may be value, up to a certain point, but you still need nat gas and nuclear to back up that unreliable green power.

photovoltaics have already beaten them in cost per kWh.

How cheap is that solar at 10 pm?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
84,483
Reaction score
25,791
Points
2,250
Location
Chicago
Waiting is what we cannot do. If such a development is on the horizon, it will come whether we act now or later. But later is guaranteed to cost us more.

Waiting is what we cannot do.

We sure the hell can wait.

If such a development is on the horizon, it will come whether we act now or later. But later is guaranteed to cost us more.

Acting now (the last 20 years) is why Germany pays triple what we pay.
Maybe they should have waited until today, "when solar is cheapest"? LOL!
Meanwhile, Chinese increases swamp Germany's decrease.

But later is guaranteed to cost us more.

Look at the huge decrease in renewable costs. Tomorrow is cheaper than today.
Next year, cheaper still.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
102,419
Reaction score
15,996
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
Todd, I'd like you to read the whole thing of course, but I especially want you to think of things I've said to you about the varying cost of taking care of problems earlier rather than later, as you read the very last sentence.

That’s what happens in an interglacial cycle.
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
19,111
Reaction score
3,012
Points
290
Location
N/A
But, as you know, the current phase of our glacial cycle is one of cooling. Despite that, global temperatures are increasing because the radiant forcing factor of our increasing GHG levels is overwhelming the glacial cycle drivers. Increasing temperatures will eventually melt Greenland (and Antarctica and all the world's glaciers) no matter their cause.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
84,483
Reaction score
25,791
Points
2,250
Location
Chicago
But, as you know, the current phase of our glacial cycle is one of cooling. Despite that, global temperatures are increasing because the radiant forcing factor of our increasing GHG levels is overwhelming the glacial cycle drivers. Increasing temperatures will eventually melt Greenland (and Antarctica and all the world's glaciers) no matter their cause.

Thank goodness. As bad as warmer is, advancing glaciers would be 10 times worse.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top