House passes largest climate spending in US History

If any of this gets made into law, I'll be amazed.

All they wanted was to get the first bill made into law and Joe signed that Monday.

All the other spending stuff is a diversion.
 
there's a lot to like in this bill



Wanna bet how little of that would actually end up being spent on "climate change"?

These are Obama-era rejects. Does anyone really think this bunch is about to outdo Obama, except for the amount of money they want to spend?

President Obama's Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures

Wasteful Obama Auto Bailouts Disturb Even Liberal Washington Post - Competitive Enterprise Institute

Obama's TARP-for-Jobs Nonsense: Today's Outrage

Shovel-ready 2.0: Another swindle
 
As if you have a single clue what is in it. You won't even educate yourself on the basics of climate change.




I know more about climate change then you ever will clown boi. You are a anti science religious nut job. Yours is a "science" based on computer derived fiction. You're so ignorant you don't even understand what data is.

What I can easily see is loads of cash being spent to do nothing but make investors rich. Money they could only make if the government passes laws to make it happen.

Brainless retards like you can't read a basic budget. let alone figure out the fraud that is happening right before your beady little eyes.
 
As if you have a single clue what is in it. You won't even educate yourself on the basics of climate change.

You don't have a fucking clue what's in it. You haven't read the bill, and all you know is what your lying media overlords have fooled you into believing.
 
I know more about climate change then you ever will clown boi. You are a anti science religious nut job. Yours is a "science" based on computer derived fiction. You're so ignorant you don't even understand what data is.

What I can easily see is loads of cash being spent to do nothing but make investors rich. Money they could only make if the government passes laws to make it happen.

Brainless retards like you can't read a basic budget. let alone figure out the fraud that is happening right before your beady little eyes.
LOL Your posts in this forum show that you are ignorant and a liar concerning AGW. You claim to be a geologist, yet accuse virtually all the other geologists in the world of being frauds because they not only recognize AGW, but have done the major research concerning it. The American Geological Society and the American Geophysical Union both have policy statements that AGW is real, but also strong warnings as to the future if we ignore the danger it poses.
 
Sure thing troll boi. Are computer models data?

Yes or no.
LOL 116 F in Portland, Oregon, and 121 F in British Colombia is data. Record floods and extreme weather events is data.

1637456990951.png


1637457898830.png

 
LOL 116 F in Portland, Oregon, and 121 F in British Colombia is data. Record floods and extreme weather events is data.

View attachment 566634

View attachment 566636



Are climate models data, yes or no, troll boi.
 
As if you have a single clue what is in it. You won't even educate yourself on the basics of climate change.
Since you are so well versed in climate can you tell me why the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?
 
Since you are so well versed in climate can you tell me why the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?
Here is one hypothesis, there are others;

Abstract​


[1] The Snowball Earth hypothesis explains the development of glaciation at low latitudes in the Neoproterozoic, as well as the associated iron formations and cap carbonates, in terms of a runaway ice-albedo feedback leading to a global glaciation followed by an extreme greenhouse climate. The initiation of a snowball glaciation is linked to a variety of unusual perturbations of the carbon cycle operating over different timescales, as evidenced by unusual patterns in the carbon isotopic composition of marine carbonate. Thus a theory for why multiple glaciations happened at this time, and not in the Phanerozoic nor earlier in the Proterozoic, requires a reexamination of the carbon cycle and the controls on climate stability. We propose that the concentration of continental area in the tropics was a critical boundary condition necessary for the onset of glaciation, both because the existence of substantial continental area at high latitudes may prevent atmospheric carbon dioxide from getting too low and because a tropical concentration of continental area may lead to more efficient burial of organic carbon through increased tropical river discharge. Efficient organic carbon burial sustained over tens of millions of years, required by the high carbon isotopic compositions of preglacial carbonate, may lead to the buildup of enormous quantities of methane, presumably in hydrate reservoirs. We examine how the slow release of this methane may explain the drop in δ13C values immediately before the glaciation. Moreover, the accumulation of methane in the atmosphere coupled with the response of silicate weathering to the additional greenhouse forcing can lead to a climate with methane as the major greenhouse gas. This situation is unstable because methane is not buffered by a large ocean reservoir like carbon dioxide, and so the collapse of the methane source may provide a trigger for the onset of a runaway ice-albedo feedback. A simple model of the carbon cycle is used to explore the boundary conditions that would allow this to occur.
 
Are climate models data, yes or no, troll boi.
Models are always wrong, but some are useful. Your model for as long as I have seen you on this board is that it is going to get colder. And it has steadily gotten warmer right on the schedule Dr. Hansen predicted.
 
Models are always wrong, but some are useful. Your model for as long as I have seen you on this board is that it is going to get colder. And it has steadily gotten warmer right on the schedule Dr. Hansen predicted.




Are climate models data? Yes or no.
 

Forum List

Back
Top