Opposing the AGW Consensus are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[JLW]

The above posts by the climate deniers show just how successful the disinformation campaign promulgated by the fossil fuel companies have been. In a recent BBC article , Phoebe Keene, explained how Exxon used ”the tobacco playbook” to sow doubt about anthropogenic climate change.

The only thing worse than Exxon is CO2.
We need to really stick it to these awful fossil fuel companies.

How many new nuclear power plants should we build?

100? 200? More?

I am not opposed to nuclear power. The issue is, are burning fossil fuels causing climate change. The answer is a resounding yes. Even fossil fuel companies admit it. Now the only question is what to do about.

Replace the 50 aging nuclear plants in this country,.. Build 50 new ones.. Problem solved. TOMORROW if you want it with 3rd nuclear plants that don't look ANYTHING like what we have now..

Even James "the GodFather of GW we're all gonna die" Hansen has said (with 20 other top environmentalists) that "If you believe you're gonna solve GW with wind and solar -- you probably believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny"...

Problem is -- too many folks MORE SCARED of nuclear power than they are about a planet they THINK is gonna die from GW in the next 12 years.. Stop FRIGHTENING the children and grow up..

GW is NOT A CRISIS anymore.. That's WHY you folks far behind the science aren't getting any traction for your circus train.. It's now an issue of RESPONSIBLE POWER PLANNING that COULD be fixed if the will to do it was actually there...

Exxon Mobil was correct.. The rest of this frightening tale is sadly irrelevant.. In YOUR lifetime depending on how old you are -- the globe has warmed by a measly 0.6 to 0.9DegC -- not 2 or 3DegC.. And ALL of the IMAGINED superpowers of CO2 have NOT manifested. No accelerations, No empirical evidence that the whacky add-on postulations about "runaway warming" are in play...

As I understand it, nuclear power is really making strides in affordability and safety. I have no qualms with upgrading existing nuclear power facilities or building more. However, I am definitely not opposed to more investment in renewables. Their costs have been falling precipitously. At least that is what I have been reading.

 

[flacaltenn]

I may be wrong, but the burning of Co2 and rising temperatures is not a new theory. It goes back to the late under 1800s when it was first theorized by Svante Arrhenius. His calculations may have been off because he could not anticipate the growth of the use motorized vehicles or of industry.

Good job.. Somehow you KNOW the ANCIENT history of GW science. But can't recall the PROGRESSION of ACTUAL GW science just over your lifespan.. No more CATASTROPHIC theories of GW.. They're gone.. POOOF..

There's an issue of warming -- it's NOT the #1 problem in the world anymore.. And the 0.7DegC of warming in your lifetime is kinda the NEW expectation for the future with CURRENT emission scenarios..

Which BTW -- NO THANKS to our Fed Govt -- US EMISSIONS of CO2 are back to levels lower than the mid 90s -- thanks to FRACKING, and pipelines for natural gas reserves that the PRIVATE SECTOR opened up and exploited..

While GERMANY just announced (after they shuttered EVERY NUCLEAR Plant and are SUCKING for energy) that they will NOT stop mining coal and burning it until 2035 - because THEY CANT -- without people dying and ruining their economy,.. Dont be a Germany.. Dont panic.. Problem solve...

 

[flacaltenn]

The above posts by the climate deniers show just how successful the disinformation campaign promulgated by the fossil fuel companies have been. In a recent BBC article , Phoebe Keene, explained how Exxon used ”the tobacco playbook” to sow doubt about anthropogenic climate change.

The only thing worse than Exxon is CO2.
We need to really stick it to these awful fossil fuel companies.

How many new nuclear power plants should we build?

100? 200? More?

I am not opposed to nuclear power. The issue is, are burning fossil fuels causing climate change. The answer is a resounding yes. Even fossil fuel companies admit it. Now the only question is what to do about.

Replace the 50 aging nuclear plants in this country,.. Build 50 new ones.. Problem solved. TOMORROW if you want it with 3rd nuclear plants that don't look ANYTHING like what we have now..

Even James "the GodFather of GW we're all gonna die" Hansen has said (with 20 other top environmentalists) that "If you believe you're gonna solve GW with wind and solar -- you probably believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny"...

Problem is -- too many folks MORE SCARED of nuclear power than they are about a planet they THINK is gonna die from GW in the next 12 years.. Stop FRIGHTENING the children and grow up..

GW is NOT A CRISIS anymore.. That's WHY you folks far behind the science aren't getting any traction for your circus train.. It's now an issue of RESPONSIBLE POWER PLANNING that COULD be fixed if the will to do it was actually there...

Exxon Mobil was correct.. The rest of this frightening tale is sadly irrelevant.. In YOUR lifetime depending on how old you are -- the globe has warmed by a measly 0.6 to 0.9DegC -- not 2 or 3DegC.. And ALL of the IMAGINED superpowers of CO2 have NOT manifested. No accelerations, No empirical evidence that the whacky add-on postulations about "runaway warming" are in play...

As I understand it, nuclear power is really making strides in affordability and safety. I have no qualms with upgrading existing nuclear power facilities or building more. However, I am definitely not opposed to more investment in renewables. Their costs have been falling precipitously. At least that is what I have been reading.

Take the incentives for wind/solar and launch a FIVE YEAR exploratory DEMONSTRATION and run-off of NEW nuclear plant design in a Federal desert somewhere..

Wind and solar are NOT ALTERNATIVES to reliable power we have now.. There IS NO PLAN for when the sun dont shine and the wind dont blow... Cali has FORCED PGE to waste SO MUCH MONEY and manpower on false alternatives, that they cant keep their grid from creating massive wildfires.. Stop the insanity.. FIX IT...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Opposing (The AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..

`

`

Here is where your bullshit 97% came from

 

[JLW]

The above posts by the climate deniers show just how successful the disinformation campaign promulgated by the fossil fuel companies have been. In a recent BBC article , Phoebe Keene, explained how Exxon used ”the tobacco playbook” to sow doubt about anthropogenic climate change.

The only thing worse than Exxon is CO2.
We need to really stick it to these awful fossil fuel companies.

How many new nuclear power plants should we build?

100? 200? More?

I am not opposed to nuclear power. The issue is, are burning fossil fuels causing climate change. The answer is a resounding yes. Even fossil fuel companies admit it. Now the only question is what to do about.

Replace the 50 aging nuclear plants in this country,.. Build 50 new ones.. Problem solved. TOMORROW if you want it with 3rd nuclear plants that don't look ANYTHING like what we have now..

Even James "the GodFather of GW we're all gonna die" Hansen has said (with 20 other top environmentalists) that "If you believe you're gonna solve GW with wind and solar -- you probably believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny"...

Problem is -- too many folks MORE SCARED of nuclear power than they are about a planet they THINK is gonna die from GW in the next 12 years.. Stop FRIGHTENING the children and grow up..

GW is NOT A CRISIS anymore.. That's WHY you folks far behind the science aren't getting any traction for your circus train.. It's now an issue of RESPONSIBLE POWER PLANNING that COULD be fixed if the will to do it was actually there...

Exxon Mobil was correct.. The rest of this frightening tale is sadly irrelevant.. In YOUR lifetime depending on how old you are -- the globe has warmed by a measly 0.6 to 0.9DegC -- not 2 or 3DegC.. And ALL of the IMAGINED superpowers of CO2 have NOT manifested. No accelerations, No empirical evidence that the whacky add-on postulations about "runaway warming" are in play...

As I understand it, nuclear power is really making strides in affordability and safety. I have no qualms with upgrading existing nuclear power facilities or building more. However, I am definitely not opposed to more investment in renewables. Their costs have been falling precipitously. At least that is what I have been reading.

Take the incentives for wind/solar and launch a FIVE YEAR exploratory DEMONSTRATION and run-off of NEW nuclear plant design in a Federal desert somewhere..

Wind and solar are NOT ALTERNATIVES to reliable power we have now.. There IS NO PLAN for when the sun dont shine and the wind dont blow... Cali has FORCED PGE to waste SO MUCH MONEY and manpower on false alternatives, that they cant keep their grid from creating massive wildfires.. Stop the insanity.. FIX IT...

I can't disagree with you on solar and wind because it is true. However, aren't we seeing growth in the battery storage business precisely to address the issues you described.

 

[abu afak]

If you want exact amount of change in 2100.. you are well into the demand detail Fallacy, especially on this dynamic system.

Wow -- this is new one to me. Someone upset that they make scientific assertions and are asked a key question and the dodge it invoking some obscure voodoo about "demanding details".. This aint going nowhere. Well it IS.. But you're not...

Just one EXAMPLE, of 99 others in the wings ready to fly as to WHY you cant have scientific consensus on GW with ONE QUESTION.. And you don't even the KNOW or cant state question for the CONSENSUS you claim is in those not so important "policy statements" from various organizations' front office management.

And invoking the "Paranoia Fallacy" with some chippy statement about me WARNING you? In the words of Joe -- "C'monnnn Maaan".. You wasted a post -- taking a cheap shot at a member who's not even in this thread.. Completely personal -- so you had a post deleted.. Wanna complain MORE?? Do it in PM like the rules state, so I don't have to POST THE DELETION HERE and argue it out with you in Public.

(and you yourself kinda admit some amount of "GW" is [shhh!] unused "AGW" [Shhh!] in your sticky thread above)

You mean THIS sticky thread?

Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics. ????

That happened because there were one or two members TOTALLY DENYING EVERYTHING about basic physics and chemistry and specifically Atmospheric Radiative Physics of the funking GHouse effect.. Got tiresome, to most ALL MEMBERS because these folks would hijack EVERY thread on GW with their intentional denials.. You dont seem to even recognize the argument as DEFENDING GHouse theory and establishing the very BASIS for GW -- which I and most EVERY OTHER Enviro forum member accept.. So the arguments got "sequestered" in their own special thread -- so that the rest of us could have a discussion...

Now -- you're FREE to pursue YOUR topic and not spend all your energy trying to intimidate me and others..

You absolutely can have a scientific consensus about whether it's happening at all.
That is the only assertion of the OP.
There are those on this board (and off) who deny there is AGW.
But because your are an unbalanced RWer, I don't see you trying to straighten them out in daily discussion here.
Your only hostility is to them warmers. [undefined] 'Catastrophic' or not.

As to intimidating (and upset/heated)...
I suggest you compare your 4-in-rows to my very few calm posts.

And Now I put another no-content Troll - Bear513 - on Ignore.
Again, a job someone should do here.
But USMB is the repository/refuge of LCD posters... and lots of page views they generate with one-liners and memes.
`
`

 

[flacaltenn]

The above posts by the climate deniers show just how successful the disinformation campaign promulgated by the fossil fuel companies have been. In a recent BBC article , Phoebe Keene, explained how Exxon used ”the tobacco playbook” to sow doubt about anthropogenic climate change.

The only thing worse than Exxon is CO2.
We need to really stick it to these awful fossil fuel companies.

How many new nuclear power plants should we build?

100? 200? More?

I am not opposed to nuclear power. The issue is, are burning fossil fuels causing climate change. The answer is a resounding yes. Even fossil fuel companies admit it. Now the only question is what to do about.

Replace the 50 aging nuclear plants in this country,.. Build 50 new ones.. Problem solved. TOMORROW if you want it with 3rd nuclear plants that don't look ANYTHING like what we have now..

Even James "the GodFather of GW we're all gonna die" Hansen has said (with 20 other top environmentalists) that "If you believe you're gonna solve GW with wind and solar -- you probably believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny"...

Problem is -- too many folks MORE SCARED of nuclear power than they are about a planet they THINK is gonna die from GW in the next 12 years.. Stop FRIGHTENING the children and grow up..

GW is NOT A CRISIS anymore.. That's WHY you folks far behind the science aren't getting any traction for your circus train.. It's now an issue of RESPONSIBLE POWER PLANNING that COULD be fixed if the will to do it was actually there...

Exxon Mobil was correct.. The rest of this frightening tale is sadly irrelevant.. In YOUR lifetime depending on how old you are -- the globe has warmed by a measly 0.6 to 0.9DegC -- not 2 or 3DegC.. And ALL of the IMAGINED superpowers of CO2 have NOT manifested. No accelerations, No empirical evidence that the whacky add-on postulations about "runaway warming" are in play...

As I understand it, nuclear power is really making strides in affordability and safety. I have no qualms with upgrading existing nuclear power facilities or building more. However, I am definitely not opposed to more investment in renewables. Their costs have been falling precipitously. At least that is what I have been reading.

Take the incentives for wind/solar and launch a FIVE YEAR exploratory DEMONSTRATION and run-off of NEW nuclear plant design in a Federal desert somewhere..

Wind and solar are NOT ALTERNATIVES to reliable power we have now.. There IS NO PLAN for when the sun dont shine and the wind dont blow... Cali has FORCED PGE to waste SO MUCH MONEY and manpower on false alternatives, that they cant keep their grid from creating massive wildfires.. Stop the insanity.. FIX IT...

I can't disagree with you on solar and wind because it is true. However, aren't we seeing growth in the battery storage business precisely to address the issues you described.

Batteries are not any kind of solution for grid scale power. It's a limited lifetime waste stream that would DWARF nuclear waste. The scaling on this is mind boogling. NOW or anytime in the future.. To store or generate at about 1MWatt -- with a capacity of 10MWatts of storage is about 2 tractor trailers of toxic waste with a 15 year lifetime that fills 2 tractor trailers. Cost DOUBLES the cost of solar/wind amortized cost.. That's enough to power a thousand homes for about 8 hours with no charge coming in.. Or ONE small mall with a supermarket and big box store for 12 hours..

That's NOT including ADDITIONS to the solar or wind farm to CHARGE the batteries while it's supplying MAX load to the grid.. It's true Rube Goldberg design..

Now -- in JAPAN -- where engineering is STILL science -- they require 10 minute battery back-up on every solar/wind project.. This is because you get LITTLE WARNING when the wind stops or clouds roll by.. That 10 minute "keep up" is JUST ENOUGH to start up a nat gas turbine to come on-line., Adds nearly 35% to the COST of those installations just for the 10 minute relief..

Not happening.. Or I HOPE no one is foolish enough to assume that's a fix to a fundamental RELIABILITY issue with wind/solar..

 

[flacaltenn]

You absolutely can have a scientific consensus about whether it's happening at all.

Nobody is DENYING the temperature record. That we've detected a mild rate of warming (by satellite it's a rate of 0.14DegC per decade) is NOT the important question(s).. So "it's happening" is a meaningless consensus.. Except it STOPPED happening in the early 2000s for about 12 years.

The 100 MEANINGFUL questions were polled by Bray and von Storch in a series of VETTED polls OF climate scientists -- BY climate scientists. EVERY ONE of those 100 or so questions ARE REQUIRED to have ANY consensus on the magnitude of the problem. In one of the first years they took these polls -- The question of whether you consider the field of climate change to be a MATURE science -- (probably circa 2004 or so).. Something like 35% of responded negatively or neutral on a scale of 1 to 5...

On the ability of MODELING TO MAKE temperature projections 50 years into the future -- almost 40% responded negatively or neutrally.. And so it goes..

A policy statement not VETTED by the MEMBERS of professional orgs asking a SINGLE STUPID question -- just aint anything approaching science..

Not a CONSENSUS anywhere in sight ON THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.. Only the juvenile horseshit one that no one is arguing about that YOU are pushing.. And here's the BEST question !!!!!

Principled practicing scientists RESENT the distortion of the REAL ACTUAL SCIENCE by making the issue totally political.. Includes the cooperation of the media is EXAGGERATING risks and projections.

 

[abu afak]

Scientific ORGs represent Tens of thousands of scientists.
There are NO ORGs left that don't believe in AGW.
The last to fold an Org of Petroleum Engineers/an admission against interest.

So I do NOT have to ask 100 questions of get each one (or 20) predictions.

And I do not have to get in the Bury-em-with-BS details.. The Statistics quagmire you yearn for/Need to ambiguate the issue.
Oh baby, FalcalTenn wants to play "I have more graphs than you."
You poor desperate soul.

The game is over/Never started because you insisted on "lets get into a billion statistics" instead of listening to every Scientific Org on the planet.
Maybe you should start a denial blog and keep pissing into the wind like WUWT. (WTFUWT)

I WILL NOT PLAY STATS AND DO NOT HAVE TO.
YOU LOST.
EVERY Scientific Org on the planet is in agreement.
Now go play 100 [fallacious] questions with someone else.

Gameover/bye.
`

 

[flacaltenn]

Scientific ORGs represent Tens of thousands of scientists.

You're not getting it.. And you're not discussing..

Tens of THOUSANDS of scientists DID NOT WRITE or CERTIFY those position statements. They were created the orgs front office staff LARGELY without ANY contact with the membership..

I GAVE you the story of what happened when the LARGEST "GW" connected org in Australia tried to revise their 10 yr old GW "statement".. The members GOT involved. Argued like the dickens and NEVER REACH a consensus on a statement.. The AGU GAVE UP.. Never revised it.

You made no comment about that post because you want to believe that ALL members of these AGREE TOTALLY on GW.. They do not and were LARGELY excluded from the process...

At least you could comment on the AGU article.. I'm not offering more evidence of what I just said if you're ONLY interested in childish filibustering..

 

[fncceo]

`
View attachment 395785

`

They call it a 'cartoon' for a reason.

 

[flacaltenn]

`
View attachment 395785

`

They call it a 'cartoon' for a reason.

That's no cartoon.. It's actually Britain's leading "climate denier" Lord Monckton showing there's still ice in the Arctic...

 

[flacaltenn]

The game is over/Never started because you insisted on "lets get into a billion statistics" instead of listening to every Scientific Org on the planet.

Listening to them exactly WHAT?? That GW has been detected? That anthropomorphic emissions play a role? OK -- I give -- I agree.. But there's "no there there" in asking consensus on the REAL QUESTIONS that would guide our response..

Like the 1st question I asked you that you ignored because of some made up "fallacy" you invented..

Unless there's consensus on what the world temp anomaly is gonna BE in 2100 and a consensus on whether the models can EVEN PREDICT 50 years out and all the other questions ((which you call a superfluous statistics barrage)) -- you haven't even got enough information to panic over..

 

[abu afak]

Listening to them exactly WHAT?? That GW has been detected? That anthropomorphic emissions play a role? OK -- I give -- I agree.. But there's "no there there" in asking consensus on the REAL QUESTIONS that would guide our response..

Like the 1st question I asked you that you ignored because of some made up "fallacy" you invented..

Unless there's consensus on what the world temp anomaly is gonna BE in 2100 and a consensus on whether the models can EVEN PREDICT 50 years out and all the other questions ((which you call a superfluous statistics barrage)) -- you haven't even got enough information to panic over..

Your post is a variation of the 'demand detail Fallacy.'
We DON'T have to know precisely how much warmer our body temperature will be to know throwing another wool blanket on it will warm it significantly, perhaps intolerably.
So we just don't do it.

`

 

[fncceo]

We DON'T have to know precisely how much warmer our body temperature will be

But, but, but ... SCIENCE!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Listening to them exactly WHAT?? That GW has been detected? That anthropomorphic emissions play a role? OK -- I give -- I agree.. But there's "no there there" in asking consensus on the REAL QUESTIONS that would guide our response..

Like the 1st question I asked you that you ignored because of some made up "fallacy" you invented..

Unless there's consensus on what the world temp anomaly is gonna BE in 2100 and a consensus on whether the models can EVEN PREDICT 50 years out and all the other questions ((which you call a superfluous statistics barrage)) -- you haven't even got enough information to panic over..

Your post is a variation of the 'demand detail Fallacy.'
We DON'T have to know precisely how much warmer our body temperature will be to know throwing another wool blanket on it will warm it significantly, perhaps intolerably.
So we just don't do it.

`

We just don't know! All we know for certain is that: the Arctic is ice free, snow is a thing of the past, we only have (fill in the blank) years until we're at a TIPPING POINT!!

“entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program.”

 

[abu afak]

“entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program.”

And I believe that's still true.
We did not stop global warming by 2000, not even close, so even if we froze or started lowering emissions now, it's baked in. Entire nations WILL be under water starting by the end of the century
Coastal flooding is already a huge issue.
Places like Miami regularly and significantly Tidal Flood Now, and only in your lifetime.
(as do some of our naval bases)

`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

“entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program.”

And I believe that's still true.
We did not stop global warming by 2000, not even close, so even if we froze or started lowering emissions now, it;'s baked in. Entire nations WILL be under water starting by the end of the centrury
Coastal flooding is alreaduy a huge issue,
Places like Miami regularly nd significantly Tidal Flood Now and only in your lifetime.

`

So so so many failed predictions, so little science. Thus is the state of the kook world of the Climate Change Worshippers

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Places like Miami regularly and significantly Tidal Flood Now, and only in your lifetime.

Sounds awful!!

How much did the oceans rise to cause this Miami flooding over the last 100 years?

 

[flacaltenn]

Listening to them exactly WHAT?? That GW has been detected? That anthropomorphic emissions play a role? OK -- I give -- I agree.. But there's "no there there" in asking consensus on the REAL QUESTIONS that would guide our response..

Like the 1st question I asked you that you ignored because of some made up "fallacy" you invented..

Unless there's consensus on what the world temp anomaly is gonna BE in 2100 and a consensus on whether the models can EVEN PREDICT 50 years out and all the other questions ((which you call a superfluous statistics barrage)) -- you haven't even got enough information to panic over..

Your post is a variation of the 'demand detail Fallacy.'
We DON'T have to know precisely how much warmer our body temperature will be to know throwing another wool blanket on it will warm it significantly, perhaps intolerably.
So we just don't do it.

`

I think you're "demand detail fallacy" is a fallacy.. You NEED A SPECIFIC question to have "a consensus" in science.. If that's "demanding too much detail" for ya -- you'll probably get your ass kicked on "consensus" issues in science..