Karakoram Glaciers EXPANDING!!!

[Star]

"Rapidly expanding?"


Indeed..........thats like sayng that Kate Hudson's boobs will soon rival those of Dolly Parton!!!!

Ooooooooooooooops!!! Welcome to Realville s0n!!! And in the past year, European countries are cutting subsidies to solar and wind as fast as people dropping the idea of repurchasing a hybrid car!!!


Realville ftmfw

Didn't click my link didja? If you had, you would have read this paragraph...



“Notwithstanding the recession of the past three years, renewable energy sources have experienced explosive rates of growth that other industries can only envy,” said Ken Bossong, executive director of the SUN DAY Campaign, which analyzed the EIA data. “The investments in sustainable energy made by the federal government as well as state and private funders have paid off handsomely, underscoring the short-sightedness of emerging proposals to cut back on or discontinue such support.” ~ Shawna (Robertson) Aakre



... as well as bunch-o-data from DOE’s Energy Information Administration --- check it out.

So, how about that $76 Trillion, is $76 trillion a lot?


Are you still claiming to accept the science that the glaciers in the Karakoram mountain range are increasing infinitesimally while simultaneously denying the same science proves global ice is decreasing at a rapid pace
or -- or-----hmmm, that's very romneyesque isn't it?

 

[skookerasbil]

As Ive said on these pages for a long, long time, the 2 questions that liberals are ALWAYS unable to answer are:

1) At what cost?

and

2) As compared to what?


So behold................the newest far left troll into the Environmental forum references the typical lefty verbiage when referencing "explosive growth" when referencing renewable energy.

The non-hopelessly duped however, are astute enough to be asking the question, "Explosive growth.............as compared to what?"


We hear the same verbiage crap applied to things like electric cars and descending rates of persons seeking unemployment assistance. Its impressive only to the hopelessly duped who are too stupid to ask the question, "As compared to what?" .

The volume of information I posted up in this thread ( see post # 35 ) puts this stuff all in perspective for the person who isnt obsessing on perpetuating an existence in Wunderland

The k00ks will forever attempt to convey this perception that renewables are making a gigantic impact on cornering the energy market. This, of couorse, is beyond absurd. Renewables are going to be nothing more than a niche market for decades...........just a fact coming to you from Realville.


Oh........and only those amongst the far left speak of 76 trillion dollars as if it were chump change. Thankfully for the rest of us, the vast majority of the public see it as expensive.........just a touch.

Some people however have just permenantly OD'd on the k00L aId.........the bozo's who post up quotes from "the Sun Day campaign"

 

[Old Rocks]

Laughing at this confirmation of the fact that the vast majority of glaciers are rapidly receding, including most of the ones in the Himalayas?

And yet...


if you accept the science that the glaciers in the Karakoram mountain range are increasing infinitesimally then it logically follows that you accept the science that global ice is decreasing at a rapid pace or, or do you pick and choose which parts of the same science you accept and reject --- ehem, please publish your credentials.



"Global average glacier mass balance is unequivocally negative" ~ Glaciologist Professor Jonathan Bamber

I suggest you actually research the rmatter. You will find that globally the ice is increasing and has been for at least 3 years. But that would be a fact and AGW supporters for the most part don't do facts.

Once again an assertation with absolutely no backup links. Just because NASA and USGS state otherwise, as do all similiar agencies for every other nation in the world doesn't mean that Walleyes is full of shit, does it?

 

[skookerasbil]

I see a future Museum of Scientific Frauds and Hoaxes featuring the peppered moth, Piltdown Man and Manmade Global Warming

Frank, NASA is on the phone...they need your expertise. Hurry up, your nation calls.

This website presents a data-rich view of climate and a discussion of how that data fits together into the scientists' current picture of our changing climate. But there's a great deal that we don't know about the future of Earth's climate and how climate change will affect humans.

For convenience and clarity, climate scientists separate things that affect climate change into two categories: forcings and feedbacks (see sidebar at right). Climate Change: Uncertainties

Climate Change: Uncertainties

nobody cares about NASA......or climate change evidently. Except of course, the far left bomb throwers!!!

LMAO......this from the brand new Pew Poll...........and I'm laughing. Even in late 2010, at least global warming was at least last on the list. Now? It doesnt even make the fucking list!!!




LOL.........same poll from November 2010....................

 

[skookerasbil]

So much winning................

 

[westwall]

Riiiiight, when you thought you had a climate change 'gotcha', you got all puffed up like a peacock in heat -- posted your climate change article In the "ENVIRONMENT" section of the USMB --- then, after you got your ass handed to you, you want to change the subject to the 2010 election?-----okeydoke. One of great things about living in America is you have the right to choose to bail out when you lose a M/B conversation, but dude, I'm SMH @U.

I think this is yours, I found it on a thread titled​

"Karakoram Glaciers are expanding!!!"​

Thats right...........what was I thinking?

Your side is dominating the skeptics!! After all..........the science is so compelling, the public is knocking doors down in DC to have their representatives pen legislation to cap carbon emmissions. Clearly, Cap and Trade is about to make a huge comeback!! The public is lurching towards the same mass hysteria that is embraced by the eco-nazi's...........coal will likely be shut down completely by 2013. By 2015, who knows, we may all have windmills on top of our cars and a big solar panel in our backyard!!! That half a degree has really moved public poicy to spend the 76 trilion to go green..........we skeptics dont have a leg to stand on anymore!!!!

What are you talking about?
Renewable energy sources are rapidly expanding in the United States and now represent more than 12% of today's energy needs.


I see lots-o-projection and smoke blowin' in your message but---but few facts. $76 trillion? - is $76 trillion a lot?




is $76 trillion a lot of money?

<snip>

Well, first of all, let’s break it down a bit. First up, this $76 trillion would be paid over 40 years. Second , it would be paid by all countries, the ones that are classed as “developing” as well as the ones that populate the ranks of the wealthy. Third, it would include private investment (of the profit-making kind) as well as public expenditures aimed at covering the incremental costs of an extremely accelerated transition, which is the kind we need.

And there’s more! For example, there are good reasons to think that green investments on this scale would sharply accelerate economic growth. Which would mean that, all things considered, we’d be richer in the future where we make them than in the future where we don’t. Also, that later future, the one in which we make no emergency climate / agriculture transition, is hardly going to be happy and free. It too would demand massive investments, and these would be made in the service of an extremely unstable, high-poverty world. Which would, of course, be crushingly expensive in its own way.

So maybe $76 trillion isn’t a lot of money.

Not that you’d know it by reading the wires. Fox News, for example, ran a piece on the 2011 Survey under the title of Even U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion. And a quick Google revealed lots and lots of other right-wing screeds, with titles like UN DEMANDS $76 Trillion: The Cost of “Going Green” Soars. This later piece was particularly interesting because it took the UN to task for raising its global climate-transition cost estimate, which indeed it has done since the 2009 Survey.

What’s the lesson?

I can think of two. First, don’t low-ball cost estimates to placate the right. As our understanding improves, cost estimates may well go up, and you’ll just get attacked for raising them. Second, and more importantly, this is a game of comparisons. The cost of saving the world should be compared, first of all, to the cost of not saving it, which will pretty predictably be a whole hell of a lot higher. And there are lots of other illuminating comparisons besides. Which is to say that the real art lies in finding better ways to think about costs, ways that don’t play into the neoliberal hysteria, ways that reveal the large numbers that characterize the climate transition literature for what they really are – small numbers.


<snip>



IOW's - pay now or pay more --a lot more-- later when emergency measures limit our choices.
It is wise to worry about tomorrow today. ~ Aesop's ant

So, how much of the worlds GDP would go into this boondogle? And exactly what is the benefit? Where else could that 76 TRILLION be better spent?

Hard questions for which the only answer so far has been it will lower the global temperature by ONE degree in 100 years....MAYBE! And you call that a good investment?

Try thinking (I know it's hard for you all) about how that 76 TRILLION FUCKING DOLLARS can be better spent.

 

[Old Rocks]

What will it cost to not address the problem created by GHGs?

Stern report: the key points | Politics | guardian.co.uk

 

[westwall]

And yet...


if you accept the science that the glaciers in the Karakoram mountain range are increasing infinitesimally then it logically follows that you accept the science that global ice is decreasing at a rapid pace or, or do you pick and choose which parts of the same science you accept and reject --- ehem, please publish your credentials.



"Global average glacier mass balance is unequivocally negative" ~ Glaciologist Professor Jonathan Bamber

I suggest you actually research the rmatter. You will find that globally the ice is increasing and has been for at least 3 years. But that would be a fact and AGW supporters for the most part don't do facts.

Once again an assertation with absolutely no backup links. Just because NASA and USGS state otherwise, as do all similiar agencies for every other nation in the world doesn't mean that Walleyes is full of shit, does it?

What was that silly person? Perhaps you are unable to read or view and understand graphs? Not surprising given the ridiculous and unfounded assertions you continually make.

 

[westwall]

What will it cost to not address the problem created by GHGs?

Stern report: the key points | Politics | guardian.co.uk

So far your sides best estimate is the 76 trillion will reduce the temp by one degree maybe. I can show that the last time there was major warming the planet did spectacularly well. All you have are pathetic computer models that bear no relation to reality.

And, you have yet to make even a small case that GHG's are bad. Even Lovelock is changing his views about them. Look up his interview on MSNBC.

 

[skookerasbil]

Like I said West......to the far left, there is no such thing as having to answer the question, "At what cost?". Invariably, it is a non-issue. Its actually fascinating to me on some level!! These people are not at all intellectually challenged, however, somehow, the thought processing gets muddled..........and there is a world of difference between the two. Most of the population possess the abilty to weigh necessary tradeoffs in life........but not these people. This 76 trillion non-issue is a perfect example..........thinking its a perfectly viable option.

 

[westwall]

Like I said West......to the far left, there is no such thing as having to answer the question, "At what cost?". Invariably, it is a non-issue. Its actually fascinating to me on some level!! These people are not at all intellectually challenged, however, somehow, the thought processing gets muddled..........and there is a world of difference between the two.

More and more their arguments sound like religion. "Well, what if there really is a God, wouldn't you feel dumb if you weren't a believer then?" It's all the same thing. their leading lights are advocating persecution of heresy as well. And they wonder why we mock them.

'Tards.

 

[Dante]

I see a future Museum of Scientific Frauds and Hoaxes featuring the peppered moth, Piltdown Man and Manmade Global Warming

Frank, NASA is on the phone...they need your expertise. Hurry up, your nation calls.

This website presents a data-rich view of climate and a discussion of how that data fits together into the scientists' current picture of our changing climate. But there's a great deal that we don't know about the future of Earth's climate and how climate change will affect humans.

For convenience and clarity, climate scientists separate things that affect climate change into two categories: forcings and feedbacks (see sidebar at right). Climate Change: Uncertainties

Climate Change: Uncertainties

 

[Star]

Like I said West......to the far left, there is no such thing as having to answer the question, "At what cost?". Invariably, it is a non-issue. Its actually fascinating to me on some level!! These people are not at all intellectually challenged, however, somehow, the thought processing gets muddled..........and there is a world of difference between the two. Most of the population possess the abilty to weigh necessary tradeoffs in life........but not these people. This 76 trillion non-issue is a perfect example..........thinking its a perfectly viable option.

"At what cost?"



Katyusha! went right over your head huh?

Renewable energy is a growth industry of the profit making kind, funded primarily via private investment -- you got problem with that?


Cost? -- ROI, dude/dudette.

 

[westwall]

Like I said West......to the far left, there is no such thing as having to answer the question, "At what cost?". Invariably, it is a non-issue. Its actually fascinating to me on some level!! These people are not at all intellectually challenged, however, somehow, the thought processing gets muddled..........and there is a world of difference between the two. Most of the population possess the abilty to weigh necessary tradeoffs in life........but not these people. This 76 trillion non-issue is a perfect example..........thinking its a perfectly viable option.

"At what cost?"



Katyusha! went right over your head huh?

Renewable energy is a growth industry of the profit making kind, funded primarily via private investment -- you got problem with that?


Cost? -- ROI, dude/dudette.

Please, please show us TWO profitable renewable energy companies that don't recieve one dime from the taxpayers....ON ANY CONTINENT. Good luck.

 

[Old Rocks]

Show us one oil corperation that is profiting at the rate of billions of dollars quarterly that is not taking taxpayer money.

 

[code1211]

What will it cost to not address the problem created by GHGs?

Stern report: the key points | Politics | guardian.co.uk

So far, the only proven problem caused by GHG's is the panic that is gripping those who believe those who profit from the research.

Any climate effects are not proven and therefore any money spent to reduce something that's not understood but methods not defined by people who are untested in a field that is undeveloped is money wasted.

Still waiting for that study that accurately predicts the weather of the last thirty years based on the "science" of AGW. That would be a study published no later than 1982. If that's too much to ask, then one from 20 years ago will be accepted.

Watcha got?

 

[code1211]

Like I said West......to the far left, there is no such thing as having to answer the question, "At what cost?". Invariably, it is a non-issue. Its actually fascinating to me on some level!! These people are not at all intellectually challenged, however, somehow, the thought processing gets muddled..........and there is a world of difference between the two. Most of the population possess the abilty to weigh necessary tradeoffs in life........but not these people. This 76 trillion non-issue is a perfect example..........thinking its a perfectly viable option.

"At what cost?"



Katyusha! went right over your head huh?

Renewable energy is a growth industry of the profit making kind, funded primarily via private investment -- you got problem with that?


Cost? -- ROI, dude/dudette.

Out of curiosity, did you know that the Globe warmed more between the year 0 and the year 1000 than it has since 1000?

Just a little reality check on the effect of Anthropogenic factors in the latest millennium.

 

[code1211]

Show us one oil corperation that is profiting at the rate of billions of dollars quarterly that is not taking taxpayer money.

I think they sell their products to tax payers.

 

[westwall]

Show us one oil corperation that is profiting at the rate of billions of dollars quarterly that is not taking taxpayer money.

They're not "taking" any taxpayer money. They are being "allowed" to keep what they make. It is not a subsidy, it is a tax break. The green companies on the other hand will fail in minutes if they don't recieve taxpayer dollars.

But hey, I would gladly take all subsidies and grants away from ALL companies. Make them stand on their own. I wonder who would be left standing

 

[skookerasbil]

Like I said West......to the far left, there is no such thing as having to answer the question, "At what cost?". Invariably, it is a non-issue. Its actually fascinating to me on some level!! These people are not at all intellectually challenged, however, somehow, the thought processing gets muddled..........and there is a world of difference between the two. Most of the population possess the abilty to weigh necessary tradeoffs in life........but not these people. This 76 trillion non-issue is a perfect example..........thinking its a perfectly viable option.

"At what cost?"



Katyusha! went right over your head huh?

Renewable energy is a growth industry of the profit making kind, funded primarily via private investment -- you got problem with that?


Cost? -- ROI, dude/dudette.

Please, please show us TWO profitable renewable energy companies that don't recieve one dime from the taxpayers....ON ANY CONTINENT. Good luck.

West..........until now, I never thought we'd see a board member come in here who was more beyond gone than Chris. But you realize......if they are out there, eventually, the most nutty of the nutty-asses find this place. Like Chris, this guy really believes his own shit............but the rest of the world knows renewbles go belly up without lots and lots of public monies. And the bottom line is, the arguments for renewables are dead in this country. Shit......even Salon Magazine of all places is now talking about it!! Check it out West.......maybe the best article Ive found in recent years that sums up the reality of where this debate is right now and moving forward. I call it Realville..................the poop>>> http://www.salon.com/2011/05/31/linbd_fossil_fuels/


None of these assholes have their feet on the ground................