The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[itfitzme]

Did you fail to read the definition? They only correct what should have been known at the time of publishing. It was a mistake not new science

But now I knkw what ECS means. So thanks for bringing it up. Otherwise, it is all so dry reading, good for insomniac nights. Easter egg hunts are more fun.

Easter egg Climate Science.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Tell us who wins what by de-industrializing the world. Whatever that means.

I'll tell you who wins by ignoring and denying the science that has proven AGW. Big oil. They bought your mind and you never felt a thing sitting there in the Lazy Boy with the brewski, did you.

Next life pay more attention in school and less to 24/7/365 political advertising. That way you'll be able to contribute to humanity rather than detract.

Here is the definition of the word de-industrialize, that you are obviously too stupid and/or too lazy to look up a word yourself?

de·in·dus·tri·al·ize/ˌdiɪnˈdʌstriəˌlaɪz/
Show Spelled [dee-in-duhs-tree-uh-lahyz]
Show IPA verb, de·in·dus·tri·al·ized, de·in·dus·tri·al·iz·ing.
verb (used with object)

1. to cause to lose industrial capability or strength; make less industrial in character or emphasis.
2. to deprive (a conquered nation) of the means or potential for industrial growth.
verb (used without object)
3. to lose industrial capability or character; become deindustrialized.
Also, de-in·dus·tri·al·ize;, especially British, de·in·dus·tri·al·ise.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1880–85; de- + industrialize


LMFAO. "ignoring and denying the science that has proven AGW" BULLSHIT. You and many like you are believing and accepting lies that have already been proven wrong.

"They bought your mind" Wrong again. I'm not a gullible sheep like you who bought into the whole Global Warming / Climate Change bullshit lies without questioning it, like you.

Next life why don't you pull your head out of your ass!

You are most definitely a gullible sheep. All cultests are. You get opinions from Rush and Rupert and treat them like news.

Do you believe what Al Gore preaches about Global Warming?

Do you believe that Global Warming is a serious threat to the planet?

If YOU answered "YES" to any one of the questions, than YOU are a gullible sheep.



If you answered "YES" to both questions than YOU are a gullible sheep.

 

[mamooth]

Threadcop here. No reports, but a few were treading on thin ice.

The few things catching notice were insults-without-content posts, which is trolling. Insults with content is a normal post. Don't just make an insult. Add content and make an insult, then you're not trolling and you're fine.

 

[Mr. H.]

Is "global warming" real enough to leverage the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans against the inadequacies of foreign countries who could give a flying ****? Our emissions are already at a 20 year low thanks to natural gas. That's the EIA talking, folks. Look it up.

If Obama spent a fraction of what he expends on "green tech" towards clean coal processes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

This is a seriously demented individual run amok. He is hell-bent on implanting his agenda and dismantling our economy, our way of life, and our country itself.

 

[PMZ]

Did you fail to read the definition? They only correct what should have been known at the time of publishing. It was a mistake not new science

Who made the determination of what they should have known at the time of publishing?

You are intent on proving conspiracy. I see no value in that. I believe them to be good science advocates on an honorable mission to get us doing what's required of us rather than what we'd prefer to be.

I have little patience with irresponsibility.

 

[PMZ]

Is "global warming" real enough to leverage the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans against the inadequacies of foreign countries who could give a flying ****? Our emissions are already at a 20 year low thanks to natural gas. That's the EIA talking, folks. Look it up.

If Obama spent a fraction of what he expends on "green tech" towards clean coal processes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

This is a seriously demented individual run amok. He is hell-bent on implanting his agenda and dismantling our economy, our way of life, and our country itself.

Your preference for President has nothing to do with science. After all, you preferred Bush/Cheney to Gore/Lieberman when most of America didn't for real good reason.

If you had lost and we had won we'd have a surplus now instead of a $17T debt.

 

[PMZ]

Here is the definition of the word de-industrialize, that you are obviously too stupid and/or too lazy to look up a word yourself?

de·in·dus·tri·al·ize/ˌdiɪnˈdʌstriəˌlaɪz/
Show Spelled [dee-in-duhs-tree-uh-lahyz]
Show IPA verb, de·in·dus·tri·al·ized, de·in·dus·tri·al·iz·ing.
verb (used with object)

1. to cause to lose industrial capability or strength; make less industrial in character or emphasis.
2. to deprive (a conquered nation) of the means or potential for industrial growth.
verb (used without object)
3. to lose industrial capability or character; become deindustrialized.
Also, de-in·dus·tri·al·ize;, especially British, de·in·dus·tri·al·ise.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1880–85; de- + industrialize


LMFAO. "ignoring and denying the science that has proven AGW" BULLSHIT. You and many like you are believing and accepting lies that have already been proven wrong.

"They bought your mind" Wrong again. I'm not a gullible sheep like you who bought into the whole Global Warming / Climate Change bullshit lies without questioning it, like you.

Next life why don't you pull your head out of your ass!

You are most definitely a gullible sheep. All cultests are. You get opinions from Rush and Rupert and treat them like news.

Do you believe what Al Gore preaches about Global Warming?

Do you believe that Global Warming is a serious threat to the planet?

If YOU answered "YES" to any one of the questions, than YOU are a gullible sheep.



If you answered "YES" to both questions than YOU are a gullible sheep.

If you didn't answer "yes" to both questions, you accept politics over science. Ignorance over knowledge.

 

[westwall]

Hurricane Sandy was the most expensive event for the year both in terms of economic and insured losses. The Hurricane caused an estimated total of USD 70 billion in economic losses, making it the second most damaging hurricane on record after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Insured losses were approximately USD 35 billion, out of which USD 20 to 25 billion were covered by the private insurance market.

Hurricaine sandy was the hurricane that wasn't. You guys lose all your credibility calling sandy a superstorm when it barely even reached the level of tropical cyclone when it landed. The losses were due to a city that has been hit by storms before not being prepared for another one. Calling sandy a superstorm is nothing more than fear mongering to those who can't be bothered to take the time to actually look up the truth.

And your drought hysterics are no more than that as well. Actual science, as opposed to the insurance industry says that droughts in this "warmer" world are becoming less intense and shorter in duration...exactly the opposite of what your fear mongering masters have predicted with their failing models.

It is interesting how you have taken to consulting with the insurance companies regarding climate change...people who stand to make fortunes off threats of even minor bad weather. It is like asking the tobacco companies to make predictions on the future health of smokers.

11 Facts About Hurricane Sandy | Do Something

10 Harrowing Facts About Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey | The Philly Post

6: Number of schools completely destroyed by Sandy

7 million: Number of people left without power

346,000 homes: Damaged or destroyed

185,000: Number of businesses in New Jersey impacted

41,000: Number of families still displaced from their homes

100,000: Number of storm-related unemployment claims

$18 billion: Amount the federal government has kicked in for debris removal

8,000: Estimated number of jobs lost in November because of Sandy

1,400: Number of sunken vessels in the wake of the storm

800,000: Number of daily and public transit customers affected

Swiss Re is a re-insurance company. They insure the insurance companies. But then, I would not expect you to know that.

Gee, let's compare it vs. a big storm shall we? The 1st St. Marcellus Flood struck West Friesland and Groningen in the year 1219 and killed a minimum of 36,000 people. 1362 saw the 2nd St. Marcellus flood which killed at minimum 25,000 people, turned sections of the mainland of Europe into islands and wiped out entire DISTRICTS. Sandy is a pip squeak compared to those storms...and they all occurred when CO2 levels were "safe".




Grote Mandrenke Storm - WorldHistoryProject.org

 

[itfitzme]

Is "global warming" real enough to leverage the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans against the inadequacies of foreign countries who could give a flying ****? Our emissions are already at a 20 year low thanks to natural gas. That's the EIA talking, folks. Look it up.*

If Obama spent a fraction of what he expends on "green tech" towards clean coal processes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.*

This is a seriously demented individual run amok. He is hell-bent on implanting his agenda and dismantling our economy, our way of life, and our country *itself.

Are you sure, because I found this?

LINK: A Coal Subsidy Act?

May 21st, 2009

"According to analysis by Point Carbon, the first category is valued at $314 billion for 2012-2030, the second at $747 billion, the third at $127.4 billion. *Thus, their fiscal estimate is $1 trillion 61 billion dollars in direct and indirect subsidies for fossil fuels against $127.4 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy."

 

[westwall]

You are most definitely a gullible sheep. All cultests are. You get opinions from Rush and Rupert and treat them like news.

Do you believe what Al Gore preaches about Global Warming?

Do you believe that Global Warming is a serious threat to the planet?

If YOU answered "YES" to any one of the questions, than YOU are a gullible sheep.



If you answered "YES" to both questions than YOU are a gullible sheep.

If you didn't answer "yes" to both questions, you accept politics over science. Ignorance over knowledge.

Yep, ignorance over science is your mantra...like most religious fanatics.

 

[Mr. H.]

Is "global warming" real enough to leverage the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans against the inadequacies of foreign countries who could give a flying ****? Our emissions are already at a 20 year low thanks to natural gas. That's the EIA talking, folks. Look it up.*

If Obama spent a fraction of what he expends on "green tech" towards clean coal processes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.*

This is a seriously demented individual run amok. He is hell-bent on implanting his agenda and dismantling our economy, our way of life, and our country *itself.

Are you sure, because I found this?

LINK: A Coal Subsidy Act?

May 21st, 2009

"According to analysis by Point Carbon, the first category is valued at $314 billion for 2012-2030, the second at $747 billion, the third at $127.4 billion. *Thus, their fiscal estimate is $1 trillion 61 billion dollars in direct and indirect subsidies for fossil fuels against $127.4 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy."

After reading that piece of horse shit that you just posted?

Yes- I'm more sure than ever.

Go find a different bicycle to ride, son.

 

[Mr. H.]

Is "global warming" real enough to leverage the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans against the inadequacies of foreign countries who could give a flying ****? Our emissions are already at a 20 year low thanks to natural gas. That's the EIA talking, folks. Look it up.

If Obama spent a fraction of what he expends on "green tech" towards clean coal processes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

This is a seriously demented individual run amok. He is hell-bent on implanting his agenda and dismantling our economy, our way of life, and our country itself.

Your preference for President has nothing to do with science. After all, you preferred Bush/Cheney to Gore/Lieberman when most of America didn't for real good reason.

If you had lost and we had won we'd have a surplus now instead of a $17T debt.

Ah so that was YOU that was standing next to me at the polling booth!

You know nothing of my "preferences". Wander off son.

 

[IanC]

Did you fail to read the definition? They only correct what should have been known at the time of publishing. It was a mistake not new science

Who made the determination of what they should have known at the time of publishing?

You are intent on proving conspiracy. I see no value in that. I believe them to be good science advocates on an honorable mission to get us doing what's required of us rather than what we'd prefer to be.

I have little patience with irresponsibility.

It really isn't as much fun when you have to explain every detail. The IPCC working group was shown an error that should have been picked up in peer review, or at least before it was included in AR4. They then agreed to make a correction but they STILL had it wrong! It is understandable to make one error but they really should have made sure they got it right the second time around.

Clear enough?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Is "global warming" real enough to leverage the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans against the inadequacies of foreign countries who could give a flying ****? Our emissions are already at a 20 year low thanks to natural gas. That's the EIA talking, folks. Look it up.

If Obama spent a fraction of what he expends on "green tech" towards clean coal processes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

This is a seriously demented individual run amok. He is hell-bent on implanting his agenda and dismantling our economy, our way of life, and our country itself.

Though I think gas is a relatively clean fuel, I am full of qualms about "clean coal". I 've heard about carbon capture and storage ... the storage part seems messy: gases tend to leak ... plus carbon plants require mercury which is highly polutant. Dirty , dirty.

 

[itfitzme]

Is "global warming" real enough to leverage the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans against the inadequacies of foreign countries who could give a flying ****? Our emissions are already at a 20 year low thanks to natural gas. That's the EIA talking, folks. Look it up.*

If Obama spent a fraction of what he expends on "green tech" towards clean coal processes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.*

This is a seriously demented individual run amok. He is hell-bent on implanting his agenda and dismantling our economy, our way of life, and our country *itself.

Are you sure, because I found this?

LINK: A Coal Subsidy Act?

May 21st, 2009

"According to analysis by Point Carbon, the first category is valued at $314 billion for 2012-2030, the second at $747 billion, the third at $127.4 billion. *Thus, their fiscal estimate is $1 trillion 61 billion dollars in direct and indirect subsidies for fossil fuels against $127.4 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy."

After reading that piece of horse shit that you just posted?

Yes- I'm more sure than ever.*

Go find a different bicycle to ride, son.

Well, that pretty much convinces me that you are wrong.

Thanks for the help.

 

[itfitzme]

*http://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/carbon-capture-and-storage-research*

"The Office of Fossil Energy has received $3.4 billion from the Recovery Act to fund research, development and deployment of technologies to use coal more cleanly and efficiently. "

*http://energy.gov/fe/articles/president-requests-6380-million-fossil-energy-programs*

April 10, 2013 - 4:00pm
President Requests $638.0 Million for Fossil Energy Programs

"*The FY 2014 budget request for the Carbon Capture & Storage and Power Systems program is $276.6 million. It also includes $35.0 million for NETL staff to conduct in-house coal R&D."

"Carbon Capture. The President’s FY 2014 budget requests $112.0 million for carbon capture R&D. "

"Carbon Storage. The President’s FY 2014 budget requests $61.1 million for carbon storage R&D. "

"Advanced Energy Systems. The President’s FY 2014 budget requests $48.0 million for advanced energy systems R&D."

"Cross-cutting Research. The President’s FY 2014 budget requests $20.5 million for crosscutting research."

*Carbon capture and storage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It appears that someone is clueless.

 

[gslack]

Here's as good a detailed description of the findings of science that were sufficent evidence to launch the current development/investment cycle of sustainable energy solutions.

Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In my business this is the handoff between research and development. As this will result in the largest project ever taken on by mankind, it will carry on concurrent with the engineering phase of many specific solutions for a few decades.

The transportation segment is making serious progress but will go through several phases before emerging fully evolved.

For instance in autos we are entering into the hybrid phase which is evolutionary and will significantly cut down on our oil addiction. That will buy time to create the infrastructure for full electric cars. Which will, eventually be supplemented with more mass transit, probably railed, eventually.

Just an example of many revolutionary things unavoidably down the road.

It's another one of wikki's many fluff pieces. It simply regurgitates the IPCC claims.. Your business is forum trolling socko, and that's not a scientific or academic field...

I've read many Wikipedia articles and many of your posts. You are not even in the same zip code as their contributers in the fields of science. You are a political hack entertaining yourself with pretensions of relevance. The Homer Simpson of the blogosphere.

However you are useful as an example of denier ignorance and for that, I thank you.

LOL, and your sock puppetry is as weak as the rest of your trolling..

You haven't read much from me, you just joined a month ago right? ROFL, of course ya did.. You meant since you joined right? Sure socko sure...

Way to out yourself schmuck, but really it wasn't necessary I already knew you were a sock..

That wikki article is a fluff piece citing the IPCC distinctly. Wikki can be a good source or it can be crap, it's the nature of an open forum like that. Kind of like your posts are crap yet some others posts here are not..

Sock puppet.

 

[SSDD]

Hurricane Sandy was the most expensive event for the year both in terms of economic and insured losses. The Hurricane caused an estimated total of USD 70 billion in economic losses, making it the second most damaging hurricane on record after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Insured losses were approximately USD 35 billion, out of which USD 20 to 25 billion were covered by the private insurance market.

Hurricaine sandy was the hurricane that wasn't. You guys lose all your credibility calling sandy a superstorm when it barely even reached the level of tropical cyclone when it landed. The losses were due to a city that has been hit by storms before not being prepared for another one. Calling sandy a superstorm is nothing more than fear mongering to those who can't be bothered to take the time to actually look up the truth.

And your drought hysterics are no more than that as well. Actual science, as opposed to the insurance industry says that droughts in this "warmer" world are becoming less intense and shorter in duration...exactly the opposite of what your fear mongering masters have predicted with their failing models.

It is interesting how you have taken to consulting with the insurance companies regarding climate change...people who stand to make fortunes off threats of even minor bad weather. It is like asking the tobacco companies to make predictions on the future health of smokers.

11 Facts About Hurricane Sandy | Do Something

10 Harrowing Facts About Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey | The Philly Post

6: Number of schools completely destroyed by Sandy

7 million: Number of people left without power

346,000 homes: Damaged or destroyed

185,000: Number of businesses in New Jersey impacted

41,000: Number of families still displaced from their homes

100,000: Number of storm-related unemployment claims

$18 billion: Amount the federal government has kicked in for debris removal

8,000: Estimated number of jobs lost in November because of Sandy

1,400: Number of sunken vessels in the wake of the storm

800,000: Number of daily and public transit customers affected

Swiss Re is a re-insurance company. They insure the insurance companies. But then, I would not expect you to know that.

That is just a statement of how poorly prepared the area was for a storm. Inexcusable since it has been hit by actual hurricaines in the past.

None of that is a statement as to how bad the storm was because as storms go, it just wasn't. It barely made it to the status of a tropical cyclone and certainly wasn't a super storm. Those who think it was should ask the survivors of Camille what a super storm looks like.

 

[SSDD]

GHGs = AGW.

Lets see the proof of that. And again, we are all still waiting for one of you wackos to state how much warming you believe is due to man's CO2 emissions.

AGW = elevated sea level, unstable climate, severe weather.

That statement is irrelavent till you prove AGW...and state how much of the warming you believe is due to man's CO2 emissions.

Lets see the proof of AGW....practically any hard proof will do.

 

[SSDD]

We are witnessing the workings of science by scientists. I suppose that people who know more, and claim it, are being honest, not arrogant. Those that know less and claim more are arrogant.

What we are witnessing are the mechanizations of the greatest hoaxters ever. One must wonder...when it all comes crashing down and the hoax is exposed...how many of you low lifes will still be around to acknowledge the degree to which you were taken in by pseudoscience.