The Only People Denying Climate Change Are Those Calling Others Climate Change Deniers

[bripat9643]

Why do we need some great catastrophe looming over us to want to take care of the planet we inhabit? Should we not just want a better place to live for ourselves and those that will come after us?

Making energy 3 times more expensive and taxing $76 trillion out of the taxpayers isn't how you take care of the planet.

 

[bripat9643]

Great. Frank is back on his kick to make everyone live in caves.

That's the kick you and all the AGW cult members are on.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why do we need some great catastrophe looming over us to want to take care of the planet we inhabit? Should we not just want a better place to live for ourselves and those that will come after us?

Making energy 3 times more expensive and taxing $76 trillion out of the taxpayers isn't how you take care of the planet.

This is what centralized socialist governments do.. they want slaves and masses dependent on the state. The UN and Obama have the same goal..

 

[aLandRemembered]

Why do we need some great catastrophe looming over us to want to take care of the planet we inhabit? Should we not just want a better place to live for ourselves and those that will come after us?

Making energy 3 times more expensive and taxing $76 trillion out of the taxpayers isn't how you take care of the planet.

This is what centralized socialist governments do.. they want slaves and masses dependent on the state. The UN and Obama have the same goal..

Where did the 76 trillion dollar figure come from just out of curiosity? And you do realize that if everyone had solar panels and wind turbines than we would no longer be dependent on oil, how does that create dependence exactly?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why do we need some great catastrophe looming over us to want to take care of the planet we inhabit? Should we not just want a better place to live for ourselves and those that will come after us?

Making energy 3 times more expensive and taxing $76 trillion out of the taxpayers isn't how you take care of the planet.

This is what centralized socialist governments do.. they want slaves and masses dependent on the state. The UN and Obama have the same goal..

Where did the 76 trillion dollar figure come from just out of curiosity? And you do realize that if everyone had solar panels and wind turbines than we would no longer be dependent on oil, how does that create dependence exactly?

76 trillion is the IPCC's wish list for money to be extracted from the US and redistributed as they see fit.. As for your windmills etc.. The environmental damage would be so great from so many batteries and their improper use/disposal it would be another democrat well meaning plot that turns into a nightmare.. And how many of your liberal control mongers would "not want those pesky wind mills and solar panels in all the yards around their homes" Then try that on your home owner associations and city zoning laws..

Its called a cluster **** of mega proportions.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Dr. Tim Ball is considered to be a joke. He's funded by fossil fuel companies and lies about it, and lies about having a Ph.D in climate science (he was a professor of geography).

And Dr. Tim Ball needs to tell everyone what natural factor creates global warming, stratospheric cooling, an increase in backradiation and a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation. You can't just wave your hands around wildly and yell "natural cycles!". You have to demonstrate what's causing the natural cycle, especially since the natural cycles we know of are trying to slowly cool the earth.

Good to see Billy at least admitting the earth is warming, though he'll now flip right back to declaring the earth is cooling.

Address the science he presented you ignorant fool.. It is why I included it int he OP... Show us where the CO2 signal is.. Or is all you got Ad Hom's?

And in just one post every one of Dr Ball's assertions are proven true... Truly funny to say the least..

"ignorant fool..."? Followed by, "Or is all you got Ad Hom's". Truly funny to say the least.

SO why dont you take a stab at where the CO2 signal is?

My BA was in History and PoliSci, My masters in Human Relations, an interdisciplinary curriculum (Anthro, Psy, Soc, SocPsyc, and Counseling); I trust NOAA not Limbaugh.

Google

 

[aLandRemembered]

Why do we need some great catastrophe looming over us to want to take care of the planet we inhabit? Should we not just want a better place to live for ourselves and those that will come after us?

Making energy 3 times more expensive and taxing $76 trillion out of the taxpayers isn't how you take care of the planet.

This is what centralized socialist governments do.. they want slaves and masses dependent on the state. The UN and Obama have the same goal..

Where did the 76 trillion dollar figure come from just out of curiosity? And you do realize that if everyone had solar panels and wind turbines than we would no longer be dependent on oil, how does that create dependence exactly?

76 trillion is the IPCC's wish list for money to be extracted from the US and redistributed as they see fit.. As for your windmills etc.. The environmental damage would be so great from so many batteries and their improper use/disposal it would be another democrat well meaning plot that turns into a nightmare.. And how many of your liberal control mongers would "not want those pesky wind mills and solar panels in all the yards around their homes" Then try that on your home owner associations and city zoning laws..

Its called a cluster **** of mega proportions.

Why do we need some great catastrophe looming over us to want to take care of the planet we inhabit? Should we not just want a better place to live for ourselves and those that will come after us?

Making energy 3 times more expensive and taxing $76 trillion out of the taxpayers isn't how you take care of the planet.

This is what centralized socialist governments do.. they want slaves and masses dependent on the state. The UN and Obama have the same goal..

Where did the 76 trillion dollar figure come from just out of curiosity? And you do realize that if everyone had solar panels and wind turbines than we would no longer be dependent on oil, how does that create dependence exactly?

76 trillion is the IPCC's wish list for money to be extracted from the US and redistributed as they see fit.. As for your windmills etc.. The environmental damage would be so great from so many batteries and their improper use/disposal it would be another democrat well meaning plot that turns into a nightmare.. And how many of your liberal control mongers would "not want those pesky wind mills and solar panels in all the yards around their homes" Then try that on your home owner associations and city zoning laws..

Its called a cluster **** of mega proportions.

I can't find anything about the IPCC requesting 76 trillion dollars from anywhere let alone just the U.S. I will give you that right now yes they are terribly inefficient but if we actually put effort in to researching them and making them better than they would become a worth while investment in our future, even if burning oil does no damage to the environment (which I very highly doubt considering all the evidence out there that states otherwise) regardless, would eliminating our oil dependence not be a great thing for our nation?

 

[flacaltenn]

Why do we need some great catastrophe looming over us to want to take care of the planet we inhabit? Should we not just want a better place to live for ourselves and those that will come after us?

Making energy 3 times more expensive and taxing $76 trillion out of the taxpayers isn't how you take care of the planet.

This is what centralized socialist governments do.. they want slaves and masses dependent on the state. The UN and Obama have the same goal..

Where did the 76 trillion dollar figure come from just out of curiosity? And you do realize that if everyone had solar panels and wind turbines than we would no longer be dependent on oil, how does that create dependence exactly?

76 trillion is the IPCC's wish list for money to be extracted from the US and redistributed as they see fit.. As for your windmills etc.. The environmental damage would be so great from so many batteries and their improper use/disposal it would be another democrat well meaning plot that turns into a nightmare.. And how many of your liberal control mongers would "not want those pesky wind mills and solar panels in all the yards around their homes" Then try that on your home owner associations and city zoning laws..

Its called a cluster **** of mega proportions.

Why do we need some great catastrophe looming over us to want to take care of the planet we inhabit? Should we not just want a better place to live for ourselves and those that will come after us?

Making energy 3 times more expensive and taxing $76 trillion out of the taxpayers isn't how you take care of the planet.

This is what centralized socialist governments do.. they want slaves and masses dependent on the state. The UN and Obama have the same goal..

Where did the 76 trillion dollar figure come from just out of curiosity? And you do realize that if everyone had solar panels and wind turbines than we would no longer be dependent on oil, how does that create dependence exactly?

76 trillion is the IPCC's wish list for money to be extracted from the US and redistributed as they see fit.. As for your windmills etc.. The environmental damage would be so great from so many batteries and their improper use/disposal it would be another democrat well meaning plot that turns into a nightmare.. And how many of your liberal control mongers would "not want those pesky wind mills and solar panels in all the yards around their homes" Then try that on your home owner associations and city zoning laws..

Its called a cluster **** of mega proportions.

I can't find anything about the IPCC requesting 76 trillion dollars from anywhere let alone just the U.S. I will give you that right now yes they are terribly inefficient but if we actually put effort in to researching them and making them better than they would become a worth while investment in our future, even if burning oil does no damage to the environment (which I very highly doubt considering all the evidence out there that states otherwise) regardless, would eliminating our oil dependence not be a great thing for our nation?

Wind power is several thousand years old. Solar has been subsidized highly and researched to death for about 50 years. Neither is gonna cut dependency on oil. First off, oil has virtually NOTHING to do with making electricity. 2nd, weve been independent for electric needs since edison. Leftists confuse important things about fuels and energy.

Wind and solar could be used OFF the grid to produce fuels like hydrogen. But they are far too unreliable to be the answer for a society like ours. How badly do you want to stop Global Warming.? Because we know how tod that. We just build about 120 nuclear plants in 10 years. 50 to replace the existing aging ones. And about 70 to kill the coal plants and rip down the giant dams... No CO2 emission problem on the grid.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do we need some great catastrophe looming over us to want to take care of the planet we inhabit? Should we not just want a better place to live for ourselves and those that will come after us?

Making energy 3 times more expensive and taxing $76 trillion out of the taxpayers isn't how you take care of the planet.

This is what centralized socialist governments do.. they want slaves and masses dependent on the state. The UN and Obama have the same goal..

Where did the 76 trillion dollar figure come from just out of curiosity? And you do realize that if everyone had solar panels and wind turbines than we would no longer be dependent on oil, how does that create dependence exactly?

Yes, actually we would still be dependent on fossil fuels because so-called "green energy" requires 100% backup from a reliable form of energy - such as a fossil fuel form of energy.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do we need some great catastrophe looming over us to want to take care of the planet we inhabit? Should we not just want a better place to live for ourselves and those that will come after us?

Making energy 3 times more expensive and taxing $76 trillion out of the taxpayers isn't how you take care of the planet.

This is what centralized socialist governments do.. they want slaves and masses dependent on the state. The UN and Obama have the same goal..

Where did the 76 trillion dollar figure come from just out of curiosity? And you do realize that if everyone had solar panels and wind turbines than we would no longer be dependent on oil, how does that create dependence exactly?

76 trillion is the IPCC's wish list for money to be extracted from the US and redistributed as they see fit.. As for your windmills etc.. The environmental damage would be so great from so many batteries and their improper use/disposal it would be another democrat well meaning plot that turns into a nightmare.. And how many of your liberal control mongers would "not want those pesky wind mills and solar panels in all the yards around their homes" Then try that on your home owner associations and city zoning laws..

Its called a cluster **** of mega proportions.

Why do we need some great catastrophe looming over us to want to take care of the planet we inhabit? Should we not just want a better place to live for ourselves and those that will come after us?

Making energy 3 times more expensive and taxing $76 trillion out of the taxpayers isn't how you take care of the planet.

This is what centralized socialist governments do.. they want slaves and masses dependent on the state. The UN and Obama have the same goal..

Where did the 76 trillion dollar figure come from just out of curiosity? And you do realize that if everyone had solar panels and wind turbines than we would no longer be dependent on oil, how does that create dependence exactly?

76 trillion is the IPCC's wish list for money to be extracted from the US and redistributed as they see fit.. As for your windmills etc.. The environmental damage would be so great from so many batteries and their improper use/disposal it would be another democrat well meaning plot that turns into a nightmare.. And how many of your liberal control mongers would "not want those pesky wind mills and solar panels in all the yards around their homes" Then try that on your home owner associations and city zoning laws..

Its called a cluster **** of mega proportions.

I can't find anything about the IPCC requesting 76 trillion dollars from anywhere let alone just the U.S. I will give you that right now yes they are terribly inefficient but if we actually put effort in to researching them and making them better than they would become a worth while investment in our future, even if burning oil does no damage to the environment (which I very highly doubt considering all the evidence out there that states otherwise) regardless, would eliminating our oil dependence not be a great thing for our nation?

Even U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost 76 Trillion Fox News

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why do we need some great catastrophe looming over us to want to take care of the planet we inhabit? Should we not just want a better place to live for ourselves and those that will come after us?

Making energy 3 times more expensive and taxing $76 trillion out of the taxpayers isn't how you take care of the planet.

This is what centralized socialist governments do.. they want slaves and masses dependent on the state. The UN and Obama have the same goal..

Where did the 76 trillion dollar figure come from just out of curiosity? And you do realize that if everyone had solar panels and wind turbines than we would no longer be dependent on oil, how does that create dependence exactly?

76 trillion is the IPCC's wish list for money to be extracted from the US and redistributed as they see fit.. As for your windmills etc.. The environmental damage would be so great from so many batteries and their improper use/disposal it would be another democrat well meaning plot that turns into a nightmare.. And how many of your liberal control mongers would "not want those pesky wind mills and solar panels in all the yards around their homes" Then try that on your home owner associations and city zoning laws..

Its called a cluster **** of mega proportions.

Why do we need some great catastrophe looming over us to want to take care of the planet we inhabit? Should we not just want a better place to live for ourselves and those that will come after us?

Making energy 3 times more expensive and taxing $76 trillion out of the taxpayers isn't how you take care of the planet.

This is what centralized socialist governments do.. they want slaves and masses dependent on the state. The UN and Obama have the same goal..

Where did the 76 trillion dollar figure come from just out of curiosity? And you do realize that if everyone had solar panels and wind turbines than we would no longer be dependent on oil, how does that create dependence exactly?

76 trillion is the IPCC's wish list for money to be extracted from the US and redistributed as they see fit.. As for your windmills etc.. The environmental damage would be so great from so many batteries and their improper use/disposal it would be another democrat well meaning plot that turns into a nightmare.. And how many of your liberal control mongers would "not want those pesky wind mills and solar panels in all the yards around their homes" Then try that on your home owner associations and city zoning laws..

Its called a cluster **** of mega proportions.

I can't find anything about the IPCC requesting 76 trillion dollars from anywhere let alone just the U.S. I will give you that right now yes they are terribly inefficient but if we actually put effort in to researching them and making them better than they would become a worth while investment in our future, even if burning oil does no damage to the environment (which I very highly doubt considering all the evidence out there that states otherwise) regardless, would eliminating our oil dependence not be a great thing for our nation?

Now, the area where glaciers were “receding faster than in any other part of the world,” is, in fact, seeing statistically significant growth in the size of the glaciers over a substantial portion of the area under study. In essence, at the very time when the IPCC was relying on WWF literature to substantiate its claims for the end of the Himalayan glaciers, satellite photos were being taken which would disprove the central claim of Pachauri’s IPCC regarding the fate of those glaciers. That the researcher responsible for the study is clearly not a “climate change denier” makes the IPCC’s credibility gap all the more significant, and it raises new questions regarding the fundamental credibility of any claim coming from an organization which has relied on shaky science to back its demand for the power to take $76 trillion from the economies of the industrialized world and “redistribute” those funds for “green technologies” in the third world.

SOURCE

As for wind and solar, they have a long way to go and we must overcome the liberal "not in my back yard" approach of I will force you to use it but dont expect me too..

Storage is the major problem. until that is cheep, less environmentally intrusive and reliable nothing else matters.

 

[idb]

Why do we need some great catastrophe looming over us to want to take care of the planet we inhabit? Should we not just want a better place to live for ourselves and those that will come after us?

 

[jc456]

Too funny billy. Nice post

 

[aLandRemembered]

Making energy 3 times more expensive and taxing $76 trillion out of the taxpayers isn't how you take care of the planet.

This is what centralized socialist governments do.. they want slaves and masses dependent on the state. The UN and Obama have the same goal..

Where did the 76 trillion dollar figure come from just out of curiosity? And you do realize that if everyone had solar panels and wind turbines than we would no longer be dependent on oil, how does that create dependence exactly?

76 trillion is the IPCC's wish list for money to be extracted from the US and redistributed as they see fit.. As for your windmills etc.. The environmental damage would be so great from so many batteries and their improper use/disposal it would be another democrat well meaning plot that turns into a nightmare.. And how many of your liberal control mongers would "not want those pesky wind mills and solar panels in all the yards around their homes" Then try that on your home owner associations and city zoning laws..

Its called a cluster **** of mega proportions.

Making energy 3 times more expensive and taxing $76 trillion out of the taxpayers isn't how you take care of the planet.

This is what centralized socialist governments do.. they want slaves and masses dependent on the state. The UN and Obama have the same goal..

Where did the 76 trillion dollar figure come from just out of curiosity? And you do realize that if everyone had solar panels and wind turbines than we would no longer be dependent on oil, how does that create dependence exactly?

76 trillion is the IPCC's wish list for money to be extracted from the US and redistributed as they see fit.. As for your windmills etc.. The environmental damage would be so great from so many batteries and their improper use/disposal it would be another democrat well meaning plot that turns into a nightmare.. And how many of your liberal control mongers would "not want those pesky wind mills and solar panels in all the yards around their homes" Then try that on your home owner associations and city zoning laws..

Its called a cluster **** of mega proportions.

I can't find anything about the IPCC requesting 76 trillion dollars from anywhere let alone just the U.S. I will give you that right now yes they are terribly inefficient but if we actually put effort in to researching them and making them better than they would become a worth while investment in our future, even if burning oil does no damage to the environment (which I very highly doubt considering all the evidence out there that states otherwise) regardless, would eliminating our oil dependence not be a great thing for our nation?

Now, the area where glaciers were “receding faster than in any other part of the world,” is, in fact, seeing statistically significant growth in the size of the glaciers over a substantial portion of the area under study. In essence, at the very time when the IPCC was relying on WWF literature to substantiate its claims for the end of the Himalayan glaciers, satellite photos were being taken which would disprove the central claim of Pachauri’s IPCC regarding the fate of those glaciers. That the researcher responsible for the study is clearly not a “climate change denier” makes the IPCC’s credibility gap all the more significant, and it raises new questions regarding the fundamental credibility of any claim coming from an organization which has relied on shaky science to back its demand for the power to take $76 trillion from the economies of the industrialized world and “redistribute” those funds for “green technologies” in the third world.

SOURCE

As for wind and solar, they have a long way to go and we must overcome the liberal "not in my back yard" approach of I will force you to use it but dont expect me too..

Storage is the major problem. until that is cheep, less environmentally intrusive and reliable nothing else matters.

They want 76 trillion dollars from the entire world over the course of 40 years, that is very different from asking the U.S. for 76 trillion dollars right here right now, as for the not in my back yard approach I have not met anyone with that view point myself but if I did I would be on your side, we not only need more efficient ways of storing the energy but also to increase the panels efficiency in gathering it.
Personally I think we are looking at the wrong piece of the photosynthesis equation, plants make energy using CO2 and light from the sun, the harm to our environment is done by the CO2 released during the process of burning fossil fuels. If plants can separate the carbon and the oxygen why not study them, figure out how to replicate it and then stick one on top of every smoke stack, using solar panels to power the process. Thus burning the coal to make energy for the grid, and using solar power to scrub the air and concentrate the carbon back in to coal in order to be burned again.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is what centralized socialist governments do.. they want slaves and masses dependent on the state. The UN and Obama have the same goal..

Where did the 76 trillion dollar figure come from just out of curiosity? And you do realize that if everyone had solar panels and wind turbines than we would no longer be dependent on oil, how does that create dependence exactly?

76 trillion is the IPCC's wish list for money to be extracted from the US and redistributed as they see fit.. As for your windmills etc.. The environmental damage would be so great from so many batteries and their improper use/disposal it would be another democrat well meaning plot that turns into a nightmare.. And how many of your liberal control mongers would "not want those pesky wind mills and solar panels in all the yards around their homes" Then try that on your home owner associations and city zoning laws..

Its called a cluster **** of mega proportions.

This is what centralized socialist governments do.. they want slaves and masses dependent on the state. The UN and Obama have the same goal..

Where did the 76 trillion dollar figure come from just out of curiosity? And you do realize that if everyone had solar panels and wind turbines than we would no longer be dependent on oil, how does that create dependence exactly?

76 trillion is the IPCC's wish list for money to be extracted from the US and redistributed as they see fit.. As for your windmills etc.. The environmental damage would be so great from so many batteries and their improper use/disposal it would be another democrat well meaning plot that turns into a nightmare.. And how many of your liberal control mongers would "not want those pesky wind mills and solar panels in all the yards around their homes" Then try that on your home owner associations and city zoning laws..

Its called a cluster **** of mega proportions.

I can't find anything about the IPCC requesting 76 trillion dollars from anywhere let alone just the U.S. I will give you that right now yes they are terribly inefficient but if we actually put effort in to researching them and making them better than they would become a worth while investment in our future, even if burning oil does no damage to the environment (which I very highly doubt considering all the evidence out there that states otherwise) regardless, would eliminating our oil dependence not be a great thing for our nation?

Now, the area where glaciers were “receding faster than in any other part of the world,” is, in fact, seeing statistically significant growth in the size of the glaciers over a substantial portion of the area under study. In essence, at the very time when the IPCC was relying on WWF literature to substantiate its claims for the end of the Himalayan glaciers, satellite photos were being taken which would disprove the central claim of Pachauri’s IPCC regarding the fate of those glaciers. That the researcher responsible for the study is clearly not a “climate change denier” makes the IPCC’s credibility gap all the more significant, and it raises new questions regarding the fundamental credibility of any claim coming from an organization which has relied on shaky science to back its demand for the power to take $76 trillion from the economies of the industrialized world and “redistribute” those funds for “green technologies” in the third world.

SOURCE

As for wind and solar, they have a long way to go and we must overcome the liberal "not in my back yard" approach of I will force you to use it but dont expect me too..

Storage is the major problem. until that is cheep, less environmentally intrusive and reliable nothing else matters.

They want 76 trillion dollars from the entire world over the course of 40 years, that is very different from asking the U.S. for 76 trillion dollars right here right now, as for the not in my back yard approach I have not met anyone with that view point myself but if I did I would be on your side, we not only need more efficient ways of storing the energy but also to increase the panels efficiency in gathering it.
Personally I think we are looking at the wrong piece of the photosynthesis equation, plants make energy using CO2 and light from the sun, the harm to our environment is done by the CO2 released during the process of burning fossil fuels. If plants can separate the carbon and the oxygen why not study them, figure out how to replicate it and then stick one on top of every smoke stack, using solar panels to power the process. Thus burning the coal to make energy for the grid, and using solar power to scrub the air and concentrate the carbon back in to coal in order to be burned again.

Wind turbines are inefficient and unreliable with high maintenance costs. They also kill birds and insects while changing the micro climates of the areas they are placed. The low vibration hum causes mental illness in both animals and humans. They are not user friendly and just one of the many reasons the Kennedy's refused to have them near their Puget Sound home.

I would be more in favor of an Ionic inducer placed vertical in the atmosphere.. No moving parts and as wind passes between the fins the static electric is converted into usable energy. For that matter lightening catching would be the best way period. If only we could find a way to capture, store and distribute this natural event, power generation would no longer be a problem. The continental US generates enough lightening strikes in just one month that it could power itself for 10 years.. Storage again is the main issue.

Carbon recapture and recarbonization? Your talking perpetual motion machines now...

Personally I think we have gone down the wrong path on renewables.. Period!

 

[aLandRemembered]

Where did the 76 trillion dollar figure come from just out of curiosity? And you do realize that if everyone had solar panels and wind turbines than we would no longer be dependent on oil, how does that create dependence exactly?

76 trillion is the IPCC's wish list for money to be extracted from the US and redistributed as they see fit.. As for your windmills etc.. The environmental damage would be so great from so many batteries and their improper use/disposal it would be another democrat well meaning plot that turns into a nightmare.. And how many of your liberal control mongers would "not want those pesky wind mills and solar panels in all the yards around their homes" Then try that on your home owner associations and city zoning laws..

Its called a cluster **** of mega proportions.

Where did the 76 trillion dollar figure come from just out of curiosity? And you do realize that if everyone had solar panels and wind turbines than we would no longer be dependent on oil, how does that create dependence exactly?

76 trillion is the IPCC's wish list for money to be extracted from the US and redistributed as they see fit.. As for your windmills etc.. The environmental damage would be so great from so many batteries and their improper use/disposal it would be another democrat well meaning plot that turns into a nightmare.. And how many of your liberal control mongers would "not want those pesky wind mills and solar panels in all the yards around their homes" Then try that on your home owner associations and city zoning laws..

Its called a cluster **** of mega proportions.

I can't find anything about the IPCC requesting 76 trillion dollars from anywhere let alone just the U.S. I will give you that right now yes they are terribly inefficient but if we actually put effort in to researching them and making them better than they would become a worth while investment in our future, even if burning oil does no damage to the environment (which I very highly doubt considering all the evidence out there that states otherwise) regardless, would eliminating our oil dependence not be a great thing for our nation?

Now, the area where glaciers were “receding faster than in any other part of the world,” is, in fact, seeing statistically significant growth in the size of the glaciers over a substantial portion of the area under study. In essence, at the very time when the IPCC was relying on WWF literature to substantiate its claims for the end of the Himalayan glaciers, satellite photos were being taken which would disprove the central claim of Pachauri’s IPCC regarding the fate of those glaciers. That the researcher responsible for the study is clearly not a “climate change denier” makes the IPCC’s credibility gap all the more significant, and it raises new questions regarding the fundamental credibility of any claim coming from an organization which has relied on shaky science to back its demand for the power to take $76 trillion from the economies of the industrialized world and “redistribute” those funds for “green technologies” in the third world.

SOURCE

As for wind and solar, they have a long way to go and we must overcome the liberal "not in my back yard" approach of I will force you to use it but dont expect me too..

Storage is the major problem. until that is cheep, less environmentally intrusive and reliable nothing else matters.

They want 76 trillion dollars from the entire world over the course of 40 years, that is very different from asking the U.S. for 76 trillion dollars right here right now, as for the not in my back yard approach I have not met anyone with that view point myself but if I did I would be on your side, we not only need more efficient ways of storing the energy but also to increase the panels efficiency in gathering it.
Personally I think we are looking at the wrong piece of the photosynthesis equation, plants make energy using CO2 and light from the sun, the harm to our environment is done by the CO2 released during the process of burning fossil fuels. If plants can separate the carbon and the oxygen why not study them, figure out how to replicate it and then stick one on top of every smoke stack, using solar panels to power the process. Thus burning the coal to make energy for the grid, and using solar power to scrub the air and concentrate the carbon back in to coal in order to be burned again.

Wind turbines are inefficient and unreliable with high maintenance costs. They also kill birds and insects while changing the micro climates of the areas they are placed. The low vibration hum causes mental illness in both animals and humans. They are not user friendly and just one of the many reasons the Kennedy's refused to have them near their Puget Sound home.

I would be more in favor of an Ionic inducer placed vertical in the atmosphere.. No moving parts and as wind passes between the fins the static electric is converted into usable energy. For that matter lightening catching would be the best way period. If only we could find a way to capture, store and distribute this natural event, power generation would no longer be a problem. The continental US generates enough lightening strikes in just one month that it could power itself for 10 years.. Storage again is the main issue.

Carbon recapture and recarbonization? Your talking perpetual motion machines now...

Personally I think we have gone down the wrong path on renewables.. Period!

There have not been any conclusive studies on the mental illness issue though I do agree with you that there are better ways of gathering renewable resources.
It is not a perpetual motion machine as it draws energy from an outside source via the sun but instead of storing the energy in batteries that we know cause problems and are far too often improperly disposed of the energy would be stored in the coal and be ready to be released whenever needed.

 

[Old Rocks]

76 trillion is the IPCC's wish list for money to be extracted from the US and redistributed as they see fit.. As for your windmills etc.. The environmental damage would be so great from so many batteries and their improper use/disposal it would be another democrat well meaning plot that turns into a nightmare.. And how many of your liberal control mongers would "not want those pesky wind mills and solar panels in all the yards around their homes" Then try that on your home owner associations and city zoning laws..

Its called a cluster **** of mega proportions.

76 trillion is the IPCC's wish list for money to be extracted from the US and redistributed as they see fit.. As for your windmills etc.. The environmental damage would be so great from so many batteries and their improper use/disposal it would be another democrat well meaning plot that turns into a nightmare.. And how many of your liberal control mongers would "not want those pesky wind mills and solar panels in all the yards around their homes" Then try that on your home owner associations and city zoning laws..

Its called a cluster **** of mega proportions.

I can't find anything about the IPCC requesting 76 trillion dollars from anywhere let alone just the U.S. I will give you that right now yes they are terribly inefficient but if we actually put effort in to researching them and making them better than they would become a worth while investment in our future, even if burning oil does no damage to the environment (which I very highly doubt considering all the evidence out there that states otherwise) regardless, would eliminating our oil dependence not be a great thing for our nation?

Now, the area where glaciers were “receding faster than in any other part of the world,” is, in fact, seeing statistically significant growth in the size of the glaciers over a substantial portion of the area under study. In essence, at the very time when the IPCC was relying on WWF literature to substantiate its claims for the end of the Himalayan glaciers, satellite photos were being taken which would disprove the central claim of Pachauri’s IPCC regarding the fate of those glaciers. That the researcher responsible for the study is clearly not a “climate change denier” makes the IPCC’s credibility gap all the more significant, and it raises new questions regarding the fundamental credibility of any claim coming from an organization which has relied on shaky science to back its demand for the power to take $76 trillion from the economies of the industrialized world and “redistribute” those funds for “green technologies” in the third world.

SOURCE

As for wind and solar, they have a long way to go and we must overcome the liberal "not in my back yard" approach of I will force you to use it but dont expect me too..

Storage is the major problem. until that is cheep, less environmentally intrusive and reliable nothing else matters.

They want 76 trillion dollars from the entire world over the course of 40 years, that is very different from asking the U.S. for 76 trillion dollars right here right now, as for the not in my back yard approach I have not met anyone with that view point myself but if I did I would be on your side, we not only need more efficient ways of storing the energy but also to increase the panels efficiency in gathering it.
Personally I think we are looking at the wrong piece of the photosynthesis equation, plants make energy using CO2 and light from the sun, the harm to our environment is done by the CO2 released during the process of burning fossil fuels. If plants can separate the carbon and the oxygen why not study them, figure out how to replicate it and then stick one on top of every smoke stack, using solar panels to power the process. Thus burning the coal to make energy for the grid, and using solar power to scrub the air and concentrate the carbon back in to coal in order to be burned again.

Wind turbines are inefficient and unreliable with high maintenance costs. They also kill birds and insects while changing the micro climates of the areas they are placed. The low vibration hum causes mental illness in both animals and humans. They are not user friendly and just one of the many reasons the Kennedy's refused to have them near their Puget Sound home.

I would be more in favor of an Ionic inducer placed vertical in the atmosphere.. No moving parts and as wind passes between the fins the static electric is converted into usable energy. For that matter lightening catching would be the best way period. If only we could find a way to capture, store and distribute this natural event, power generation would no longer be a problem. The continental US generates enough lightening strikes in just one month that it could power itself for 10 years.. Storage again is the main issue.

Carbon recapture and recarbonization? Your talking perpetual motion machines now...

Personally I think we have gone down the wrong path on renewables.. Period!

There have not been any conclusive studies on the mental illness issue though I do agree with you that there are better ways of gathering renewable resources.
It is not a perpetual motion machine as it draws energy from an outside source via the sun but instead of storing the energy in batteries that we know cause problems and are far too often improperly disposed of the energy would be stored in the coal and be ready to be released whenever needed.

Fellow, you really need to take a basic course in thermo-dynamics. That is about the most inefficient way of making electricity I have ever seen proposed. If the solar is making enough energy to seperate the carbon and oxygen, it is making more energy than the coal is creating by burning. Why not just use the solar and dispatch with the coal, period?

As of now, solar is about the same cost as dirty coal and wind is far cheaper.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...rt-to-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html


In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

 

[Old Rocks]

Where did the 76 trillion dollar figure come from just out of curiosity? And you do realize that if everyone had solar panels and wind turbines than we would no longer be dependent on oil, how does that create dependence exactly?

76 trillion is the IPCC's wish list for money to be extracted from the US and redistributed as they see fit.. As for your windmills etc.. The environmental damage would be so great from so many batteries and their improper use/disposal it would be another democrat well meaning plot that turns into a nightmare.. And how many of your liberal control mongers would "not want those pesky wind mills and solar panels in all the yards around their homes" Then try that on your home owner associations and city zoning laws..

Its called a cluster **** of mega proportions.

Where did the 76 trillion dollar figure come from just out of curiosity? And you do realize that if everyone had solar panels and wind turbines than we would no longer be dependent on oil, how does that create dependence exactly?

76 trillion is the IPCC's wish list for money to be extracted from the US and redistributed as they see fit.. As for your windmills etc.. The environmental damage would be so great from so many batteries and their improper use/disposal it would be another democrat well meaning plot that turns into a nightmare.. And how many of your liberal control mongers would "not want those pesky wind mills and solar panels in all the yards around their homes" Then try that on your home owner associations and city zoning laws..

Its called a cluster **** of mega proportions.

I can't find anything about the IPCC requesting 76 trillion dollars from anywhere let alone just the U.S. I will give you that right now yes they are terribly inefficient but if we actually put effort in to researching them and making them better than they would become a worth while investment in our future, even if burning oil does no damage to the environment (which I very highly doubt considering all the evidence out there that states otherwise) regardless, would eliminating our oil dependence not be a great thing for our nation?

Now, the area where glaciers were “receding faster than in any other part of the world,” is, in fact, seeing statistically significant growth in the size of the glaciers over a substantial portion of the area under study. In essence, at the very time when the IPCC was relying on WWF literature to substantiate its claims for the end of the Himalayan glaciers, satellite photos were being taken which would disprove the central claim of Pachauri’s IPCC regarding the fate of those glaciers. That the researcher responsible for the study is clearly not a “climate change denier” makes the IPCC’s credibility gap all the more significant, and it raises new questions regarding the fundamental credibility of any claim coming from an organization which has relied on shaky science to back its demand for the power to take $76 trillion from the economies of the industrialized world and “redistribute” those funds for “green technologies” in the third world.

SOURCE

As for wind and solar, they have a long way to go and we must overcome the liberal "not in my back yard" approach of I will force you to use it but dont expect me too..

Storage is the major problem. until that is cheep, less environmentally intrusive and reliable nothing else matters.

They want 76 trillion dollars from the entire world over the course of 40 years, that is very different from asking the U.S. for 76 trillion dollars right here right now, as for the not in my back yard approach I have not met anyone with that view point myself but if I did I would be on your side, we not only need more efficient ways of storing the energy but also to increase the panels efficiency in gathering it.
Personally I think we are looking at the wrong piece of the photosynthesis equation, plants make energy using CO2 and light from the sun, the harm to our environment is done by the CO2 released during the process of burning fossil fuels. If plants can separate the carbon and the oxygen why not study them, figure out how to replicate it and then stick one on top of every smoke stack, using solar panels to power the process. Thus burning the coal to make energy for the grid, and using solar power to scrub the air and concentrate the carbon back in to coal in order to be burned again.

Wind turbines are inefficient and unreliable with high maintenance costs. They also kill birds and insects while changing the micro climates of the areas they are placed. The low vibration hum causes mental illness in both animals and humans. They are not user friendly and just one of the many reasons the Kennedy's refused to have them near their Puget Sound home.

I would be more in favor of an Ionic inducer placed vertical in the atmosphere.. No moving parts and as wind passes between the fins the static electric is converted into usable energy. For that matter lightening catching would be the best way period. If only we could find a way to capture, store and distribute this natural event, power generation would no longer be a problem. The continental US generates enough lightening strikes in just one month that it could power itself for 10 years.. Storage again is the main issue.

Carbon recapture and recarbonization? Your talking perpetual motion machines now...

Personally I think we have gone down the wrong path on renewables.. Period!

Care to link something that shows that wind is inefficient? I thought that was part of the new rules. Or are they only for people that actually know something about the subject?

 

[westwall]

Dr. Tim Ball is considered to be a joke. He's funded by fossil fuel companies and lies about it, and lies about having a Ph.D in climate science (he was a professor of geography).

And Dr. Tim Ball needs to tell everyone what natural factor creates global warming, stratospheric cooling, an increase in backradiation and a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation. You can't just wave your hands around wildly and yell "natural cycles!". You have to demonstrate what's causing the natural cycle, especially since the natural cycles we know of are trying to slowly cool the earth.

Good to see Billy at least admitting the earth is warming, though he'll now flip right back to declaring the earth is cooling.

Really? He has handed Mann his ass in the court case in Canada. Leave it to a political hack like yourself to neglect to mention all the facts. The only one we're laughing at is Mann and his claims to be a Nobel laureate. What a ******* jackass.

 

[Billy_Bob]

76 trillion is the IPCC's wish list for money to be extracted from the US and redistributed as they see fit.. As for your windmills etc.. The environmental damage would be so great from so many batteries and their improper use/disposal it would be another democrat well meaning plot that turns into a nightmare.. And how many of your liberal control mongers would "not want those pesky wind mills and solar panels in all the yards around their homes" Then try that on your home owner associations and city zoning laws..

Its called a cluster **** of mega proportions.

76 trillion is the IPCC's wish list for money to be extracted from the US and redistributed as they see fit.. As for your windmills etc.. The environmental damage would be so great from so many batteries and their improper use/disposal it would be another democrat well meaning plot that turns into a nightmare.. And how many of your liberal control mongers would "not want those pesky wind mills and solar panels in all the yards around their homes" Then try that on your home owner associations and city zoning laws..

Its called a cluster **** of mega proportions.

I can't find anything about the IPCC requesting 76 trillion dollars from anywhere let alone just the U.S. I will give you that right now yes they are terribly inefficient but if we actually put effort in to researching them and making them better than they would become a worth while investment in our future, even if burning oil does no damage to the environment (which I very highly doubt considering all the evidence out there that states otherwise) regardless, would eliminating our oil dependence not be a great thing for our nation?

Now, the area where glaciers were “receding faster than in any other part of the world,” is, in fact, seeing statistically significant growth in the size of the glaciers over a substantial portion of the area under study. In essence, at the very time when the IPCC was relying on WWF literature to substantiate its claims for the end of the Himalayan glaciers, satellite photos were being taken which would disprove the central claim of Pachauri’s IPCC regarding the fate of those glaciers. That the researcher responsible for the study is clearly not a “climate change denier” makes the IPCC’s credibility gap all the more significant, and it raises new questions regarding the fundamental credibility of any claim coming from an organization which has relied on shaky science to back its demand for the power to take $76 trillion from the economies of the industrialized world and “redistribute” those funds for “green technologies” in the third world.

SOURCE

As for wind and solar, they have a long way to go and we must overcome the liberal "not in my back yard" approach of I will force you to use it but dont expect me too..

Storage is the major problem. until that is cheep, less environmentally intrusive and reliable nothing else matters.

They want 76 trillion dollars from the entire world over the course of 40 years, that is very different from asking the U.S. for 76 trillion dollars right here right now, as for the not in my back yard approach I have not met anyone with that view point myself but if I did I would be on your side, we not only need more efficient ways of storing the energy but also to increase the panels efficiency in gathering it.
Personally I think we are looking at the wrong piece of the photosynthesis equation, plants make energy using CO2 and light from the sun, the harm to our environment is done by the CO2 released during the process of burning fossil fuels. If plants can separate the carbon and the oxygen why not study them, figure out how to replicate it and then stick one on top of every smoke stack, using solar panels to power the process. Thus burning the coal to make energy for the grid, and using solar power to scrub the air and concentrate the carbon back in to coal in order to be burned again.

Wind turbines are inefficient and unreliable with high maintenance costs. They also kill birds and insects while changing the micro climates of the areas they are placed. The low vibration hum causes mental illness in both animals and humans. They are not user friendly and just one of the many reasons the Kennedy's refused to have them near their Puget Sound home.

I would be more in favor of an Ionic inducer placed vertical in the atmosphere.. No moving parts and as wind passes between the fins the static electric is converted into usable energy. For that matter lightening catching would be the best way period. If only we could find a way to capture, store and distribute this natural event, power generation would no longer be a problem. The continental US generates enough lightening strikes in just one month that it could power itself for 10 years.. Storage again is the main issue.

Carbon recapture and recarbonization? Your talking perpetual motion machines now...

Personally I think we have gone down the wrong path on renewables.. Period!

Care to link something that shows that wind is inefficient? I thought that was part of the new rules. Or are they only for people that actually know something about the subject?

At less than 20% efficiency.... I rest my case..