Republicans alone in dening global warming

[Revere]

Excepting cases like the heat wave in Russia and, ealier, Europe, won't be heat that is the first noticiable product of a rapid climate change. It will be rapidly rising prices for food as there are crop failures in differant parts of the world, due to heat, to little, or too much, rain. By the time the average American really becomes aware of the fact that he has been led down the primrose path by the big energy companies, he, and his family, will be completely screwed.

Where is the "science" that says change will be "rapid?"

Prior history of climate changes. Younger Dryas. Both going in and coming out of the Younger Dryas, the primary change occured in about a decade, more or less.

Look at what is happening in the Arctic right now. The depth of the permafrost thaw, and the amount of methane that it is releasing is happening rapidly, an acclelerating acceleration.

Arctic Climate Threat--Methane from Thawing Permafrost: Scientific American

Ongoing observations, made by my research team during trips to Cherskii and numerous other sites and by our colleagues, reinforce the sense that thawing is accelerating and indicate that the emissions could be much greater than anticipated. My group’s latest estimates are that under current warming rates, by 2100 permafrost thawing could boost methane emissions far beyond what would be produced by all other natural and man-made sources. The added greenhouse gas, along with the extra carbon dioxide that exposed, thawing ground would release, together could raise the mean annual temperature of the earth by an additional 0.32 degree C, according to Vladimir Alexeev, also at Fairbanks.

That's not "rapid" and it's dependent on baseless extrapolations.

 

[westwall]

The Republican Party is the best party that oil money could buy.

Obama got more BP money than anybody else. Looks like they can buy Democrats too.

 

[westwall]

The Republican Party is the best party that oil money could buy.

The only way to convince anyone of your case is for the earth's temperatures to start rising up fast enough for people to notice the changes within their own lifes within a matter of a short couple of years. Because most don't trust the temperature data be it satellite, surface or otherwise.

The scientist either have done a very bad job with proving their case or the skeptics could be right. If they're doing a bad job proven their case then most people think they're a joke and need a good amount of discomfort before they wonder wtf is going on...Of course they maybe right, but they're utterly failing, so far.

Excepting cases like the heat wave in Russia and, ealier, Europe, won't be heat that is the first noticiable product of a rapid climate change. It will be rapidly rising prices for food as there are crop failures in differant parts of the world, due to heat, to little, or too much, rain. By the time the average American really becomes aware of the fact that he has been led down the primrose path by the big energy companies, he, and his family, will be completely screwed.

Yap, yap, yap. We are going to hit peak oil withing the next 10 years....said back in the 1970's. Mankind will starve to death by the year 2000...Obama's Science czar John Holdren 1969. And my favorite by this imbecile "...if you lose the summer sea ice, there are phenomena that could lead you not so very long thereafter to lose the winter sea ice as well. And if you lose that sea ice year round, it’s going to mean drastic climatic change all over the hemisphere". - John Holdren, 2009.

There you go chicken little. Decades of failed catastrophism. Congrats, you are even less accurate than the average psychic who bats at least .333.

 

[Old Rocks]

The only way to convince anyone of your case is for the earth's temperatures to start rising up fast enough for people to notice the changes within their own lifes within a matter of a short couple of years. Because most don't trust the temperature data be it satellite, surface or otherwise.

The scientist either have done a very bad job with proving their case or the skeptics could be right. If they're doing a bad job proven their case then most people think they're a joke and need a good amount of discomfort before they wonder wtf is going on...Of course they maybe right, but they're utterly failing, so far.

Excepting cases like the heat wave in Russia and, ealier, Europe, won't be heat that is the first noticiable product of a rapid climate change. It will be rapidly rising prices for food as there are crop failures in differant parts of the world, due to heat, to little, or too much, rain. By the time the average American really becomes aware of the fact that he has been led down the primrose path by the big energy companies, he, and his family, will be completely screwed.

Yap, yap, yap. We are going to hit peak oil withing the next 10 years....said back in the 1970's. Mankind will starve to death by the year 2000...Obama's Science czar John Holdren 1969. And my favorite by this imbecile "...if you lose the summer sea ice, there are phenomena that could lead you not so very long thereafter to lose the winter sea ice as well. And if you lose that sea ice year round, it’s going to mean drastic climatic change all over the hemisphere". - John Holdren, 2009.

There you go chicken little. Decades of failed catastrophism. Congrats, you are even less accurate than the average psychic who bats at least .333.

You continue to be one dumb ass, Walleyes. So easy to refute your silly lies.

Peak oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970.[1] His logistic model, now called Hubbert peak theory, and its variants have described with reasonable accuracy the peak and decline of production from oil wells, fields, regions, and countries,[2] and has also proved useful in other limited-resource production-domains. According to the Hubbert model, the production rate of a limited resource will follow a roughly symmetrical logistic distribution curve (sometimes incorrectly compared to a bell-shaped curve) based on the limits of exploitability and market pressures. Various modified versions of his original logistic model are used, using more complex functions to allow for real world factors. While each version is applied to a specific domain, the central features of the Hubbert curve (that production stops rising and then declines) remain unchanged, albeit with different profiles.

Some observers, such as petroleum industry experts Kenneth S. Deffeyes and Matthew Simmons, believe the high dependence of most modern industrial transport, agricultural, and industrial systems on the relative low cost and high availability of oil will cause the post-peak production decline and possible severe increases in the price of oil to have negative implications for the global economy. Predictions vary greatly as to what exactly these negative effects would be. If political and economic changes only occur in reaction to high prices and shortages rather than in reaction to the threat of a peak, then the degree of economic damage to importing countries will largely depend on how rapidly oil imports decline post-peak. According to the Export Land Model, oil exports drop much more quickly than production drops due to domestic consumption increases in exporting countries. Supply shortfalls would cause the price of oil to increase sharply, unless demand is mitigated with planned conservation measures and use of alternatives.[3]

Optimistic estimations of peak production forecast the global decline will begin by 2020 or later, and assume major investments in alternatives will occur before a crisis, without requiring major changes in the lifestyle of heavily oil-consuming nations. These models show the price of oil at first escalating and then retreating as other types of fuel and energy sources are used.[4] Pessimistic predictions of future oil production operate on the thesis that either the peak has already occurred,[5][6][7][8] that oil production is on the cusp of the peak, or that it will occur shortly.[9][10] As proactive mitigation may no longer be an option, a global depression is predicted, perhaps even initiating a chain reaction of the various feedback mechanisms in the global market that might stimulate a collapse of global industrial civilization, potentially leading to large population declines within a short period. Throughout the first two quarters of 2008, there were signs that a global recession was being made worse by a series of record oil prices.

 

[westwall]

Excepting cases like the heat wave in Russia and, ealier, Europe, won't be heat that is the first noticiable product of a rapid climate change. It will be rapidly rising prices for food as there are crop failures in differant parts of the world, due to heat, to little, or too much, rain. By the time the average American really becomes aware of the fact that he has been led down the primrose path by the big energy companies, he, and his family, will be completely screwed.

Yap, yap, yap. We are going to hit peak oil withing the next 10 years....said back in the 1970's. Mankind will starve to death by the year 2000...Obama's Science czar John Holdren 1969. And my favorite by this imbecile "...if you lose the summer sea ice, there are phenomena that could lead you not so very long thereafter to lose the winter sea ice as well. And if you lose that sea ice year round, it’s going to mean drastic climatic change all over the hemisphere". - John Holdren, 2009.

There you go chicken little. Decades of failed catastrophism. Congrats, you are even less accurate than the average psychic who bats at least .333.

You continue to be one dumb ass, Walleyes. So easy to refute your silly lies.

Peak oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970.[1] His logistic model, now called Hubbert peak theory, and its variants have described with reasonable accuracy the peak and decline of production from oil wells, fields, regions, and countries,[2] and has also proved useful in other limited-resource production-domains. According to the Hubbert model, the production rate of a limited resource will follow a roughly symmetrical logistic distribution curve (sometimes incorrectly compared to a bell-shaped curve) based on the limits of exploitability and market pressures. Various modified versions of his original logistic model are used, using more complex functions to allow for real world factors. While each version is applied to a specific domain, the central features of the Hubbert curve (that production stops rising and then declines) remain unchanged, albeit with different profiles.

Some observers, such as petroleum industry experts Kenneth S. Deffeyes and Matthew Simmons, believe the high dependence of most modern industrial transport, agricultural, and industrial systems on the relative low cost and high availability of oil will cause the post-peak production decline and possible severe increases in the price of oil to have negative implications for the global economy. Predictions vary greatly as to what exactly these negative effects would be. If political and economic changes only occur in reaction to high prices and shortages rather than in reaction to the threat of a peak, then the degree of economic damage to importing countries will largely depend on how rapidly oil imports decline post-peak. According to the Export Land Model, oil exports drop much more quickly than production drops due to domestic consumption increases in exporting countries. Supply shortfalls would cause the price of oil to increase sharply, unless demand is mitigated with planned conservation measures and use of alternatives.[3]

Optimistic estimations of peak production forecast the global decline will begin by 2020 or later, and assume major investments in alternatives will occur before a crisis, without requiring major changes in the lifestyle of heavily oil-consuming nations. These models show the price of oil at first escalating and then retreating as other types of fuel and energy sources are used.[4] Pessimistic predictions of future oil production operate on the thesis that either the peak has already occurred,[5][6][7][8] that oil production is on the cusp of the peak, or that it will occur shortly.[9][10] As proactive mitigation may no longer be an option, a global depression is predicted, perhaps even initiating a chain reaction of the various feedback mechanisms in the global market that might stimulate a collapse of global industrial civilization, potentially leading to large population declines within a short period. Throughout the first two quarters of 2008, there were signs that a global recession was being made worse by a series of record oil prices.

Right, I am a huge liar there olfraud. Please point to where I lied. Everything I posted is factual and I was even CONSERVATIVE on my timeline, you very kindly provided a story that states the term peak oil was used even before the '70s which only serves to reinforce my point. You clowns have been yapping on like a bunch of puppies about the end of oil since the 1950's (we now find out) and lo and behold we STILL HAVE NOT REACHED PEAK OIL. Which only points out how completely useless your alarmist prognostications truly are.

Your predictions are even worse than I portrayed. Thank you for exposing what complete failures you folks truly are. I couldn't have done better myself.

 

[Chris]

Big Oil is pulling the strings of the Republican Party and the Tea Party.

That's why we are sending $100 billion dollars overseas each year for oil.

That's also why we don't have alternative energy or any real energy conservation program.

Voting Republican is voting for the destruction of America.

 

[Stephanie]

you're article is titled as junk so I won't bother to read it.....why?

because reps don't DENY global warming ( nice change of phrase, GW has become toxic) they just disagree as to how bad it is, why and what to do about it....

I am sure thats to subtle for tree huggers dot com to understand or digest though...

 

[Stephanie]

LOL, no one is FORCING you all to USE oil.

go live in a cave and live like a caveman if you all want, what do we care.

see if you can get your computer to run off FIRE..

an don't forget the Fred Flintstonemoble.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yap, yap, yap. We are going to hit peak oil withing the next 10 years....said back in the 1970's. Mankind will starve to death by the year 2000...Obama's Science czar John Holdren 1969. And my favorite by this imbecile "...if you lose the summer sea ice, there are phenomena that could lead you not so very long thereafter to lose the winter sea ice as well. And if you lose that sea ice year round, it’s going to mean drastic climatic change all over the hemisphere". - John Holdren, 2009.

There you go chicken little. Decades of failed catastrophism. Congrats, you are even less accurate than the average psychic who bats at least .333.

You continue to be one dumb ass, Walleyes. So easy to refute your silly lies.

Peak oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970.[1] His logistic model, now called Hubbert peak theory, and its variants have described with reasonable accuracy the peak and decline of production from oil wells, fields, regions, and countries,[2] and has also proved useful in other limited-resource production-domains. According to the Hubbert model, the production rate of a limited resource will follow a roughly symmetrical logistic distribution curve (sometimes incorrectly compared to a bell-shaped curve) based on the limits of exploitability and market pressures. Various modified versions of his original logistic model are used, using more complex functions to allow for real world factors. While each version is applied to a specific domain, the central features of the Hubbert curve (that production stops rising and then declines) remain unchanged, albeit with different profiles.

Some observers, such as petroleum industry experts Kenneth S. Deffeyes and Matthew Simmons, believe the high dependence of most modern industrial transport, agricultural, and industrial systems on the relative low cost and high availability of oil will cause the post-peak production decline and possible severe increases in the price of oil to have negative implications for the global economy. Predictions vary greatly as to what exactly these negative effects would be. If political and economic changes only occur in reaction to high prices and shortages rather than in reaction to the threat of a peak, then the degree of economic damage to importing countries will largely depend on how rapidly oil imports decline post-peak. According to the Export Land Model, oil exports drop much more quickly than production drops due to domestic consumption increases in exporting countries. Supply shortfalls would cause the price of oil to increase sharply, unless demand is mitigated with planned conservation measures and use of alternatives.[3]

Optimistic estimations of peak production forecast the global decline will begin by 2020 or later, and assume major investments in alternatives will occur before a crisis, without requiring major changes in the lifestyle of heavily oil-consuming nations. These models show the price of oil at first escalating and then retreating as other types of fuel and energy sources are used.[4] Pessimistic predictions of future oil production operate on the thesis that either the peak has already occurred,[5][6][7][8] that oil production is on the cusp of the peak, or that it will occur shortly.[9][10] As proactive mitigation may no longer be an option, a global depression is predicted, perhaps even initiating a chain reaction of the various feedback mechanisms in the global market that might stimulate a collapse of global industrial civilization, potentially leading to large population declines within a short period. Throughout the first two quarters of 2008, there were signs that a global recession was being made worse by a series of record oil prices.

Right, I am a huge liar there olfraud. Please point to where I lied. Everything I posted is factual and I was even CONSERVATIVE on my timeline, you very kindly provided a story that states the term peak oil was used even before the '70s which only serves to reinforce my point. You clowns have been yapping on like a bunch of puppies about the end of oil since the 1950's (we now find out) and lo and behold we STILL HAVE NOT REACHED PEAK OIL. Which only points out how completely useless your alarmist prognostications truly are.

Your predictions are even worse than I portrayed. Thank you for exposing what complete failures you folks truly are. I couldn't have done better myself.

"We are going to hit peak oil in the next ten years, said back in the 1970s".

The peak oil for the US was stated by Hubert in 1956 as between 1965 and 1970. Oil production peaked here in the US in 1970. For the world, oil production has been predicted to peak between 2010 and 2020.

FileU200611 Fig1.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

Big Oil is pulling the strings of the Republican Party and the Tea Party.

That's why we are sending $100 billion dollars overseas each year for oil.

That's also why we don't have alternative energy or any real energy conservation program.

Voting Republican is voting for the destruction of America.

And one international bank has over a 60 billion dollar stake in green tech that is solely dependent on having onerous laws passed for them to make a trillion bucks.....who has the most motivation to lie here ignoramus.

 

[Old Rocks]

Not only is green tech not dependent on having those laws passed, it is making money hand over fist. Most solar manufacturing plants have their panels sold out months ahead. The wind turbine manufactures, even in this economic climate, are having a hard time keeping up with demand.

Were we to build a grid to pick up wind and solar energy in those areas that have maximum potential, these plants would be sold out years ahead.

 

[westwall]

Not only is green tech not dependent on having those laws passed, it is making money hand over fist. Most solar manufacturing plants have their panels sold out months ahead. The wind turbine manufactures, even in this economic climate, are having a hard time keeping up with demand.

Were we to build a grid to pick up wind and solar energy in those areas that have maximum potential, these plants would be sold out years ahead.

Ahhh olfraud you make it too easy! Greentech is only profitible with tax grants and incentives paid for by taxpayers. So that's a fail for you. CCX has laid off over 50 workers and the trade for carbon credits is tanking, trading at around 5 cents a ton from a high of 12 bucks a ton. The reason for the collapse? The FAILURE of Cap And Trade.

Chicago Climate Exchange

If you look at the graph you will see the bottom drops out of the market when it was anounced that Cap and Trade was dead in Congress.......that would classify as an epic fail for you olfraud.

Or do you prefer pwned? I love these new terms!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's not even called "Global Warming" or even "Climate change" anymore!

 

[mdn2000]

Not only is green tech not dependent on having those laws passed, it is making money hand over fist. Most solar manufacturing plants have their panels sold out months ahead. The wind turbine manufactures, even in this economic climate, are having a hard time keeping up with demand.

Were we to build a grid to pick up wind and solar energy in those areas that have maximum potential, these plants would be sold out years ahead.

I dont even need to debate old crock, Old Crock contradicts himself, taking my side, inadvertently talking about the grid congress is mandating into law.

"Green tech not dependent on having those laws passed"

" Were we to build a grid to pick up wind and solar energy "

That grid is being debated in congress, and passed into law with tons of regulations.

So to begin, Old Crock states Green Energy (which does not exist) is dependent on Congress passing law replacing the old grid with a "smart grid", (which is ironic, for only an idiot believes the government has a smart idea for a "smart grid").

Old Crocks idea of green energy depends a 100% on laws passed by tyrants.

If Green Energy lies about government dependence, do they lie about the energy potential, yes, they do.

So Old Crock, defend your first seven words of your post, I bet you will not, I bet you do not even try, I bet you ignore this post.

Not only is green tech not dependent

Seven words Old Crock, GO!

 

[saveliberty]

This will all work as soon as Congress outlaws clouds.

 

[mdn2000]

This will all work as soon as Congress outlaws clouds.

Congress is also passing a law that we must keep our lights on at night to power the solar panels to keep the smart grid powered at night so our smart meters dont take us off the smart grid.

 

[Chris]

This will all work as soon as Congress outlaws clouds.

Wrong.

It will work when carbon nanotubes are perfected.

And we aren't that far away. Thank God, for the folks at MIT. They don't listen to Republican bullshit. They just develop the technology.

 

[westwall]

This will all work as soon as Congress outlaws clouds.

Wrong.

It will work when carbon nanotubes are perfected.

And we aren't that far away. Thank God, for the folks at MIT. They don't listen to Republican bullshit. They just develop the technology.

Ohhh Chris, poor Chris. Not Republican's at all (I'm a lifelong Democrat) just honest scientists who are tired of alarmist claptrap.

 

[Chris]

This will all work as soon as Congress outlaws clouds.

Wrong.

It will work when carbon nanotubes are perfected.

And we aren't that far away. Thank God, for the folks at MIT. They don't listen to Republican bullshit. They just develop the technology.

Ohhh Chris, poor Chris. Not Republican's at all (I'm a lifelong Democrat) just honest scientists who are tired of alarmist claptrap.

Sorry, I don't believe you.

You are a shill for the American Petroleum Institue.

 

[California Girl]

"It is difficult to identify another major political party in any democracy as thoroughly dismissive of climate science as is the GOP here." That's the pull quote from an important column in the National Journal today and it reveals an ugly, under-reported truth about American politics. Conservatives and conservative leaders the world over -- David Cameron's Tories in Britain, Nicolas Sarkozy in France, Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union in Germany, and so on -- do not shy from the science of climate change. In fact, there's only one democracy in the world where a prominent political party has made it a point to deny climate science: The United States. But why?

Why Are The Republicans The World's Only Major Political Party Denying Climate Change? : TreeHugger

If you can't even get the the ******* title right.... It is NOT global warming, it is CLIMATE CHANGE, why the **** should I read your stupid drivel... or the stupid drivel you link to.

******* idiot.