What the science says

[Dante]

I wonder if the deniers would believe the science if the climate scientists came out and said fixing things would cost nothing.

But I am being purposefully disingenuous here. No climate scientists are the ones making claims of what things would cost. That would be policy makers, not the scientists doing the science. And there is one huge hole or flaw, in SSDD 's claims to being honest or informed

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

cafeteria style science. Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed

The Hubble photo isn't influenced by politics.
The photo doesn't want us to spend $10 trillion on windmills and carbon taxes.

Well, I have yet to pay a cent in carbon taxes, and the people spending the money on the windmills are making a profit, and we are all gaining energy from those mills.

Price of Wind Energy Goes Down in Texas

You thought you might never hear it, but wind power is becoming a formidable price competitor with fossil fuels in Texas, and Austin’s public utility is revamping its programs to suit.

In the year 2000, Austin Energy unrolled a program giving consumers the option to fund wind energy development and the city became a recognized leader in energy innovation.

The GreenChoice program let homes and businesses pay slightly more for their power and buy directly from wind farms, hoping to finance and encourage development.

It worked so well that, by 2009, it was in trouble, and the program was scaled back. Texans in Austin and beyond were demanding more wind energy than power lines could carry, and clogged transmission infrastructure sent prices skyrocketing.

When GreenChoice premiered, consumers opting for wind energy could lock into a ten-year fixed price just six cents per kilowatt-hour more than the standard cost at the time. By 2009 the difference had risen to $2.05, due largely to transmission overload.

The revamped program reflects the new reality of wind power in Texas. How much more per kilowatt-hour are GreenChoice customers asked to pay today? Just one cent.

Well, I have yet to pay a cent in carbon taxes,

Are you sure?

the people spending the money on the windmills are making a profit

On the power, or on the taxpayer subsidies?

Price of Wind Energy Goes Down in Texas

Less reliable energy is worth less, that's true.

The GreenChoice program let homes and businesses pay slightly more for their power

LOL!

 

[SSDD]

I have stated why I lack any confidence in climate science...

I am talking about the scientists who have total confidence in the climate science.

You have no idea of what level their confidence actually is...unsubstantiated guesses...part and parcel of the warming cult.

Question: Why would any rational human being take your arguments seriously, when there exists a 'consensus' on the climate science, within the scientific community?

Scientific consensus suggests the presence of a set of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that is so strong that one simply could not argue against it...and even then, it is very difficult to get a room full of actual scientists to actually agree across the board. Skepticism is the very life blood of science and scientists...skepticism is the fuel for scientific advancement.

So when I ask for just a little bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis...and none can be found....I would ask, why would any rational human being take the claims of climate science seriously?

Your argument is that your reasonings are just as valid as those of the scientific community. I'm sorry to tell you, that sounds a bit Maybe even more than a bit

My argument is that neither you, nor the entire climate science community can produce any observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. My position is due to that exact abject lack of such evidence....so tell me, since there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW....exactly what is that consensus based on?

 

[SSDD]

I wonder if the deniers would believe the science if the climate scientists came out and said fixing things would cost nothing.

Fixing what? What is there to be fixed.....what is happening within the present climate that is outside the boundaries of natural variability?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

cafeteria style science. Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed

The Hubble photo isn't influenced by politics.
The photo doesn't want us to spend $10 trillion on windmills and carbon taxes.

So you use your politics to decide when to believe the science?

No, but I'm not blind to the political uses of science. Or the political twisting of science.

Very big of you to admit it and validate Dante's point

Dante's point was, "Look at the cool picture, now you have to believe everything I say"

cafeteria style science on display: Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed when the fear of regulations may be involved

when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed when the fear of regulations may be involved

Why does a Hubble photo make NASA recommendations about fossil fuels somehow correct?

The very same science that put that telescope up there has observed the effect of the burning of fossil fuels on the climate. You put 43% more CO2 and 250% more CH4 in the atmosphere, you are going to warm the atmosphere. So it is time use another energy source. One that does not put GHGs into the atmosphere.

You put 43% more CO2 and 250% more CH4 in the atmosphere, you are going to warm the atmosphere.

Yup.

So it is time use another energy source.

Reliable energy sources.

One that does not put GHGs into the atmosphere.

Only if warmer is worse. If warmer is better, more GHGs would be okay.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, slightly more right now. Wind and solar are continuing to decline in price, while the cost of fossil fuel is continuing to go up.

 

[Dante]

cafeteria style science. Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed

The Hubble photo isn't influenced by politics.
The photo doesn't want us to spend $10 trillion on windmills and carbon taxes.

Well, I have yet to pay a cent in carbon taxes, and the people spending the money on the windmills are making a profit, and we are all gaining energy from those mills.

Price of Wind Energy Goes Down in Texas

You thought you might never hear it, but wind power is becoming a formidable price competitor with fossil fuels in Texas, and Austin’s public utility is revamping its programs to suit.

In the year 2000, Austin Energy unrolled a program giving consumers the option to fund wind energy development and the city became a recognized leader in energy innovation.

The GreenChoice program let homes and businesses pay slightly more for their power and buy directly from wind farms, hoping to finance and encourage development.

It worked so well that, by 2009, it was in trouble, and the program was scaled back. Texans in Austin and beyond were demanding more wind energy than power lines could carry, and clogged transmission infrastructure sent prices skyrocketing.

When GreenChoice premiered, consumers opting for wind energy could lock into a ten-year fixed price just six cents per kilowatt-hour more than the standard cost at the time. By 2009 the difference had risen to $2.05, due largely to transmission overload.

The revamped program reflects the new reality of wind power in Texas. How much more per kilowatt-hour are GreenChoice customers asked to pay today? Just one cent.

Well, I have yet to pay a cent in carbon taxes,

Are you sure?

the people spending the money on the windmills are making a profit

On the power, or on the taxpayer subsidies?

Price of Wind Energy Goes Down in Texas

Less reliable energy is worth less, that's true.

The GreenChoice program let homes and businesses pay slightly more for their power

LOL!

America was built on subsidizing emerging industries, big business concerns, and picking winners

what a dope you are

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But they do make claims about the photos and the science and we believe them because they are NASA.

Yes, their claims about Hubble photos are very believable. About AGW, not so much.

They are to an overwhelming majority of real scientists, as opposed to people like you, forming a 'consensus' within the scientific community.

Yes, I disagree with their consensus about spending trillions.

 

[Dante]

I have stated why I lack any confidence in climate science...

I am talking about the scientists who have total confidence in the climate science.

You have no idea of what level their confidence actually is...unsubstantiated guesses...part and parcel of the warming cult.

Question: Why would any rational human being take your arguments seriously, when there exists a 'consensus' on the climate science, within the scientific community?

Scientific consensus suggests the presence of a set of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that is so strong that one simply could not argue against it...and even then, it is very difficult to get a room full of actual scientists to actually agree across the board. Skepticism is the very life blood of science and scientists...skepticism is the fuel for scientific advancement.

So when I ask for just a little bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis...and none can be found....I would ask, why would any rational human being take the claims of climate science seriously?

Your argument is that your reasonings are just as valid as those of the scientific community. I'm sorry to tell you, that sounds a bit Maybe even more than a bit

My argument is that neither you, nor the entire climate science community can produce any observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. My position is due to that exact abject lack of such evidence....so tell me, since there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW....exactly what is that consensus based on?

okay, you're back to regurgitating talking points

see you later ali-benghazi

 

[Dante]

Yes, I disagree with their consensus about spending trillions.

Whose consensus on spending trillions?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

cafeteria style science. Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed

The Hubble photo isn't influenced by politics.
The photo doesn't want us to spend $10 trillion on windmills and carbon taxes.

Well, I have yet to pay a cent in carbon taxes, and the people spending the money on the windmills are making a profit, and we are all gaining energy from those mills.

Price of Wind Energy Goes Down in Texas

You thought you might never hear it, but wind power is becoming a formidable price competitor with fossil fuels in Texas, and Austin’s public utility is revamping its programs to suit.

In the year 2000, Austin Energy unrolled a program giving consumers the option to fund wind energy development and the city became a recognized leader in energy innovation.

The GreenChoice program let homes and businesses pay slightly more for their power and buy directly from wind farms, hoping to finance and encourage development.

It worked so well that, by 2009, it was in trouble, and the program was scaled back. Texans in Austin and beyond were demanding more wind energy than power lines could carry, and clogged transmission infrastructure sent prices skyrocketing.

When GreenChoice premiered, consumers opting for wind energy could lock into a ten-year fixed price just six cents per kilowatt-hour more than the standard cost at the time. By 2009 the difference had risen to $2.05, due largely to transmission overload.

The revamped program reflects the new reality of wind power in Texas. How much more per kilowatt-hour are GreenChoice customers asked to pay today? Just one cent.

Well, I have yet to pay a cent in carbon taxes,

Are you sure?

the people spending the money on the windmills are making a profit

On the power, or on the taxpayer subsidies?

Price of Wind Energy Goes Down in Texas

Less reliable energy is worth less, that's true.

The GreenChoice program let homes and businesses pay slightly more for their power

LOL!

America was built on subsidizing emerging industries, big business concerns, and picking winners

what a dope you are

Feel free to subsidize unreliable "green energy" with your own funds.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, I disagree with their consensus about spending trillions.

Whose consensus on spending trillions?

Warmers don't want to spend trillions? That's a relief.

 

[SSDD]

You are simply a damned liar. It has been provided for you time and time. The fact that we have a warming world has been established. The melting of the Arctic Sea Ice has been and is being observed. The last three years records, the three warmest years on record, right in a row.

You are a liar rocks...but we all know that already...no such evidence has ever been provided because none exists...but feel free to post it here if you think it does....all you have done so far, by what you have posted, is prove beyond doubt that you have no idea what observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting the A in AGW might look like...there isn't the first bit of observed evidence proving that absorption and emission equals warming...so keep trying if you like.

One has only to look and listen to the videos of the lectures at the annual AGU meeting in San Francisco to see and hear the scientists present evidence and observations you falsely claim does not exist.

You are welcome to post it right here and prove me wrong if you think it exists....but we both know that you won't.

 

[SSDD]

Is it that you are unable to actually argue against my reasons for not believing the climate science community...

Your reasons for inferring NASA is lying?

Seriously? The climate science community has just stated...with a straight face, that they will require a 23 TRILLION dollar investment.

In what context? Worldwide? Over decades? What?

14 years as if that mattered....

You disbelieve NASA because you claim it is "The climate science community" asking for a "23 TRILLION dollar investment?" Or saying a "23 TRILLION dollar investment" would be needed 'if' certain things are not addressed, or are addressed wrongly?

No...my reasons for disbelieving them is that there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical data to support their claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions....the money is the reason I believe they are prepared to lie.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, slightly more right now. Wind and solar are continuing to decline in price, while the cost of fossil fuel is continuing to go up.

Bullshit.

 

[SSDD]

I have stated why I lack any confidence in climate science...

I am talking about the scientists who have total confidence in the climate science.

You have no idea of what level their confidence actually is...unsubstantiated guesses...part and parcel of the warming cult.

Question: Why would any rational human being take your arguments seriously, when there exists a 'consensus' on the climate science, within the scientific community?

Scientific consensus suggests the presence of a set of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that is so strong that one simply could not argue against it...and even then, it is very difficult to get a room full of actual scientists to actually agree across the board. Skepticism is the very life blood of science and scientists...skepticism is the fuel for scientific advancement.

So when I ask for just a little bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis...and none can be found....I would ask, why would any rational human being take the claims of climate science seriously?

Your argument is that your reasonings are just as valid as those of the scientific community. I'm sorry to tell you, that sounds a bit Maybe even more than a bit

My argument is that neither you, nor the entire climate science community can produce any observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. My position is due to that exact abject lack of such evidence....so tell me, since there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW....exactly what is that consensus based on?

okay, you're back to regurgitating talking points

see you later ali-benghazi

Run away...run away....we are to the point where observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence talks and bullshit walks...run away...run away...run away...

 

[Old Rocks]

cafeteria style science. Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed

The Hubble photo isn't influenced by politics.
The photo doesn't want us to spend $10 trillion on windmills and carbon taxes.

Well, I have yet to pay a cent in carbon taxes, and the people spending the money on the windmills are making a profit, and we are all gaining energy from those mills.

Price of Wind Energy Goes Down in Texas

You thought you might never hear it, but wind power is becoming a formidable price competitor with fossil fuels in Texas, and Austin’s public utility is revamping its programs to suit.

In the year 2000, Austin Energy unrolled a program giving consumers the option to fund wind energy development and the city became a recognized leader in energy innovation.

The GreenChoice program let homes and businesses pay slightly more for their power and buy directly from wind farms, hoping to finance and encourage development.

It worked so well that, by 2009, it was in trouble, and the program was scaled back. Texans in Austin and beyond were demanding more wind energy than power lines could carry, and clogged transmission infrastructure sent prices skyrocketing.

When GreenChoice premiered, consumers opting for wind energy could lock into a ten-year fixed price just six cents per kilowatt-hour more than the standard cost at the time. By 2009 the difference had risen to $2.05, due largely to transmission overload.

The revamped program reflects the new reality of wind power in Texas. How much more per kilowatt-hour are GreenChoice customers asked to pay today? Just one cent.

Well, I have yet to pay a cent in carbon taxes,

Are you sure?

the people spending the money on the windmills are making a profit

On the power, or on the taxpayer subsidies?

Price of Wind Energy Goes Down in Texas

Less reliable energy is worth less, that's true.

The GreenChoice program let homes and businesses pay slightly more for their power

LOL!

America was built on subsidizing emerging industries, big business concerns, and picking winners

what a dope you are

Feel free to subsidize unreliable "green energy" with your own funds.

The subsidies are from taxpayer funds. The people in charge of the government, our elected officials, decide how that money is to be spent. The majority elected those officials. So how they spend those funds reflects the will of the majority.

You don't like that, work to change the will of the majority and elect your own people. Good luck with getting Trump elected.

 

[Old Rocks]

I have stated why I lack any confidence in climate science...

I am talking about the scientists who have total confidence in the climate science.

You have no idea of what level their confidence actually is...unsubstantiated guesses...part and parcel of the warming cult.

Question: Why would any rational human being take your arguments seriously, when there exists a 'consensus' on the climate science, within the scientific community?

Scientific consensus suggests the presence of a set of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that is so strong that one simply could not argue against it...and even then, it is very difficult to get a room full of actual scientists to actually agree across the board. Skepticism is the very life blood of science and scientists...skepticism is the fuel for scientific advancement.

So when I ask for just a little bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis...and none can be found....I would ask, why would any rational human being take the claims of climate science seriously?

Your argument is that your reasonings are just as valid as those of the scientific community. I'm sorry to tell you, that sounds a bit Maybe even more than a bit

My argument is that neither you, nor the entire climate science community can produce any observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. My position is due to that exact abject lack of such evidence....so tell me, since there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW....exactly what is that consensus based on?

okay, you're back to regurgitating talking points

see you later ali-benghazi

Run away...run away....we are to the point where observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence talks and bullshit walks...run away...run away...run away...

Run away yourself, you lying little cocksuck. There is the evidence from the past.

 

[SSDD]

I have stated why I lack any confidence in climate science...

I am talking about the scientists who have total confidence in the climate science.

You have no idea of what level their confidence actually is...unsubstantiated guesses...part and parcel of the warming cult.

Question: Why would any rational human being take your arguments seriously, when there exists a 'consensus' on the climate science, within the scientific community?

Scientific consensus suggests the presence of a set of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that is so strong that one simply could not argue against it...and even then, it is very difficult to get a room full of actual scientists to actually agree across the board. Skepticism is the very life blood of science and scientists...skepticism is the fuel for scientific advancement.

So when I ask for just a little bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis...and none can be found....I would ask, why would any rational human being take the claims of climate science seriously?

Your argument is that your reasonings are just as valid as those of the scientific community. I'm sorry to tell you, that sounds a bit Maybe even more than a bit

My argument is that neither you, nor the entire climate science community can produce any observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. My position is due to that exact abject lack of such evidence....so tell me, since there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW....exactly what is that consensus based on?

okay, you're back to regurgitating talking points

see you later ali-benghazi

Run away...run away....we are to the point where observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence talks and bullshit walks...run away...run away...run away...

Run away yourself, you lying little cocksuck. There is the evidence from the past.

OK...rather than listen to that entire steaming pile of shit....you tell me the minute marker where you believe that he presents some observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the A in AGW...


By the way...haven't you noticed that the trend among warmers is now to move away from the ludicrous idea that CO2 is the control knob of the climate...

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, slightly more right now. Wind and solar are continuing to decline in price, while the cost of fossil fuel is continuing to go up.

Bullshit.

Advanced technology, improved siting techniques, and learning across all sectors as the industry scales up have all influenced the cost of wind energy over time. The Department of Energy, below, depicts the cost reduction in wind energy alongside U.S. wind energy deployment, showing a decrease in cost of more than 90% since the early 1980's. [4]

The Cost of Wind Energy in the U.S.

Read it and weep, silly ass.