Why is climate science political?

[starcraftzzz]

Oddball -

And THAT is your example? And why on earth would you think this was relevent?

Kilimanjro doesn't even have glaciers, genius!

As you must be aware - 97% of the world's glaciers (and 99% of Alaskan glaciers) are in retreat.

Some 1% are growing.

So, yes, if you spend another hour looking, you will find evidence that backs your cause, and you can prevent it as evidence that everything is fine.

How old are the glacial fields that are melting?

If 97% of the world's glaciers are declining, and largely at double the rate they were declining - what age would you think they are?

Code11 does not think

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

I don't think it is a question of money. In some cases, I suspect some countries will save money in the long run.

Obviously spending trillions now to reduce global temps by 0.2 degrees in 2080 will save money in the long run.

Maybe by the year 2300? 2400 at the latest.
Where should I mail my check?

Perhaps at the point you are prepared to discuss the matter sensibly.

I say again - countries, cities, business and households in a lot of western countries will save money (and in some cases already are).

You're not obliged to understand how.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

I don't think it is a question of money. In some cases, I suspect some countries will save money in the long run.

Obviously spending trillions now to reduce global temps by 0.2 degrees in 2080 will save money in the long run.

Maybe by the year 2300? 2400 at the latest.
Where should I mail my check?

Perhaps at the point you are prepared to discuss the matter sensibly.

I say again - countries, cities, business and households in a lot of western countries will save money (and in some cases already are).

You're not obliged to understand how.

Yes, those loans to Solyndra no doubt saved America billions, maybe trillions.

You don't need to explain how.

 

[Saigon]

OMG you deny reality are ytou insane or just a retard?

Yes, I deny your claim that in reality this is the first time glaciers have retreated.

Sorry if that makes you feel more retarded than usual.

Todd - everyone knows that glaciers go through complex cycles or growth and retreat. In normal circumstances, some glaciers are growing while others retreat, and others do neither.

What you seem to have somehow missed is that this complex cycle seem to slow to a halt in 1950, and from then on we have seen 97% of glaciers retreating.

(Check the U. Fairbanks study conducted by Anthony Arendt on this - here is an overview: Assessing the influence of Alaska glaciers is slippery work

Todd - everyone knows that glaciers go through complex cycles or growth and retreat.

Apparently the idiot I'm mocking doesn't know that. Give the moron a hand, would you?

Why not address the point?

 

[Saigon]

Obviously spending trillions now to reduce global temps by 0.2 degrees in 2080 will save money in the long run.

Maybe by the year 2300? 2400 at the latest.
Where should I mail my check?

Perhaps at the point you are prepared to discuss the matter sensibly.

I say again - countries, cities, business and households in a lot of western countries will save money (and in some cases already are).

You're not obliged to understand how.

Yes, those loans to Solyndra no doubt saved America billions, maybe trillions.

You don't need to explain how.

Todd -

It is of no concern to me whether you are up to speed on this issue or not. If you'd prefer to be out of the loop - go with that.

Why did you ask me the question if you weren't prepared to listen to the answer?

 

[starcraftzzz]

Obviously spending trillions now to reduce global temps by 0.2 degrees in 2080 will save money in the long run.

Maybe by the year 2300? 2400 at the latest.
Where should I mail my check?

Perhaps at the point you are prepared to discuss the matter sensibly.

I say again - countries, cities, business and households in a lot of western countries will save money (and in some cases already are).

You're not obliged to understand how.

Yes, those loans to Solyndra no doubt saved America billions, maybe trillions.

You don't need to explain how.

Oh you mean loans that have a defualt rate 10 times less then private loans and of which have aloready created 4 dollars in benifits for evcery dollar spent
perhaps if you didnt chery pick and act like a retard you wouldnt be one

 

[westwall]

can someone please tell me how the continued retreat of glaciers is evidence of manmade global warming? is the retreat before 1950 (or whatever cutoff you want to use) different than post 1950?

Yes, the retreat before 1950 was GREATER than it is today.

Actually, no the rate of decline now is around double that of 1950 - and yes, I can back that up.

Check Arendt's work on the Alaska glaciers for this- here: Assessing the influence of Alaska glaciers is slippery work

This is an overview, but the study is available oneline (you may have to register)

Wrong again Tojo. Here are a couple of images showing the rate of loss prior to 1850. It was SIGNIFICANTLY greater than today. Also I posted a link to the USGS and they have historical images showing the rate of loss. Finally here is a map showing the terminus of the Glacier Bay glaciers beginning in 1760-80 (when they were first noted by Europeans). As you can see the melt prior to 1950 was profound.

You're as accurate here as your statement that there are no glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro. In other words abject failure. Do you know anything?

 

[westwall]

Todd -

I don't think it is a question of money. In some cases, I suspect some countries will save money in the long run.

76 TRILLION ******* dollars to maybe lower the global temp by 1 degree in a hundred years and you think some country's will benefit? You're a hoot!

 

[westwall]

Todd -

I don't think it is a question of money. In some cases, I suspect some countries will save money in the long run.

Obviously spending trillions now to reduce global temps by 0.2 degrees in 2080 will save money in the long run.

Maybe by the year 2300? 2400 at the latest.
Where should I mail my check?

Perhaps at the point you are prepared to discuss the matter sensibly.

I say again - countries, cities, business and households in a lot of western countries will save money (and in some cases already are).

You're not obliged to understand how.

Prove it. Energy costs determine costs of products up and down the produce stream. You show me how you can double energy costs and people will benefit. Now we get to see how little you understand economics. This should be funny as hell.

 

[westwall]

Perhaps at the point you are prepared to discuss the matter sensibly.

I say again - countries, cities, business and households in a lot of western countries will save money (and in some cases already are).

You're not obliged to understand how.

Yes, those loans to Solyndra no doubt saved America billions, maybe trillions.

You don't need to explain how.

Oh you mean loans that have a defualt rate 10 times less then private loans and of which have aloready created 4 dollars in benifits for evcery dollar spent
perhaps if you didnt chery pick and act like a retard you wouldnt be one

Sure they have. Just think, if Solyndra could have had a ROI of just .50 cents they would have remained in business. With a ROI of four bucks they are thriving!........oh wait.....they're not. They're bankrupt and in receivership.

So....which alternate reality do you exist in?

 

[Saigon]

Prove it. Energy costs determine costs of products up and down the produce stream. You show me how you can double energy costs and people will benefit. Now we get to see how little you understand economics. This should be funny as hell.

There are a number of ways that national governments, cities, institutions and private households can and already are saving money by reacting to climate change, but let's start with one from an institution, and then perhaps move on to governments.

King's College in London began refurbishment of its campus buildings some years ago, with the aims of reducing its carbon footprint and cutting costs. After anylising everything from lighting to HVAC to windows, they initiated a series of measures.

In the first year of the project, they cut emissions by 3,000t, and made savings estimated at £4.4 million. The HVAC installation paid for itself within 12 months.

I hope you found this entertaining.

 

[Saigon]

And here is an example of how a country can save money.

A private company in New Zealand has been testing tidal power turbines in Cook Strait, NZ.

Based on the performance of the pilot program, 200 turbines could produce enough power to supply New Zealand's total electricity demand by 150%. (This is an optimal figure, which I stress is essentially theoretical)

The turbines produce virtually 0 emmissions, are invisible, and produce electricity more cheaply than the coal plants they will replace. They have less environmental impact than hydro, and require very little maintenance.

Of course I understand that you will laugh at this, but for the companies creating jobs and export dollars, and for the private citizens who get to see the coal plants closed, I doubt they will agree with you.

Here is some info on the pilot:

The turbine Neptune intends installing at a cost of $10 million 4.5km off Wellington’s Island Bay will have a maximum generation capacity of 1MW – enough for about 500 homes.

That is a fraction of the 12GW of power – 1.5 times New Zealand’s present generation capacity – Bathurst calculates could be extracted from Cook Strait at a cost of billions.

It is intended that the turbines will be made in New Zealand. The 14m-diameter machines are made of carbon fibre so yacht builders are potential manufacturing partners.

The turbine’s carbon fibre construction should give it three times the generation capacity per tonne of a conventional wind turbine, Bathurst said.

cryptogon.com » New Zealand: Cook Strait Tidal Energy Project Getting Underway

 

[Saigon]

Yes, the retreat before 1950 was GREATER than it is today.

Actually, no the rate of decline now is around double that of 1950 - and yes, I can back that up.

Check Arendt's work on the Alaska glaciers for this- here: Assessing the influence of Alaska glaciers is slippery work

This is an overview, but the study is available oneline (you may have to register)

Wrong again Tojo. Here are a couple of images showing the rate of loss prior to 1850. It was SIGNIFICANTLY greater than today. Also I posted a link to the USGS and they have historical images showing the rate of loss. Finally here is a map showing the terminus of the Glacier Bay glaciers beginning in 1760-80 (when they were first noted by Europeans). As you can see the melt prior to 1950 was profound.

You're as accurate here as your statement that there are no glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro. In other words abject failure. Do you know anything?

Westwall -

This is really, really poor posting from you.

Do you understand the difference between looking at a single example, and looking at a vast number of glaciers?

If so - then stop presenting single examples, and start to look at the material presented.


PS. I stand corrected about Kilimanjaro's glaciers. I didn't know that it had any - it certainly didn't look to when I flew over it!

 

[skookerasbil]

Todd -

I don't think it is a question of money. In some cases, I suspect some countries will save money in the long run.

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD


How does somebody like this navigate in the real world?? I read some of these posts and there is such a level of disconnect as not to be believed. Pure fantasy stuff.


s0n..........you gotta take a course in how to read tea leaves. Your shit is not at all grounded. Green energy is moving at a snails pace for one reason: its not cost effective by any measure. Any measure. All over the world, any of this "real science" isnt mattering because countries have budgets and people are sick and tired of getting the shit taxed out of them to support this 18th century technology designed to "save the world".


As Thomas Sowell brilliantly identifies in this vid.........far left guys are never concerned with answering two key questions no matter what you re debating:

1) As compared to what?

and

2) At what cost?


Thats why they compromise a small % of us..........most people have the inate ability to recognize that having to answer those two questions is critical.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88]The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative - YouTube[/ame]



Go to 3:40



How do I know with 100% certainty that Im correct and dopes like Saigon are wrong? If Saigon was grounded, Cap and Trade would have been a chip shot field goal in America. Its dead.......as dead as a doornail. Trust me.........people dont give a rats ass about "glacial retreat".

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, no the rate of decline now is around double that of 1950 - and yes, I can back that up.

Check Arendt's work on the Alaska glaciers for this- here: Assessing the influence of Alaska glaciers is slippery work

This is an overview, but the study is available oneline (you may have to register)

Wrong again Tojo. Here are a couple of images showing the rate of loss prior to 1850. It was SIGNIFICANTLY greater than today. Also I posted a link to the USGS and they have historical images showing the rate of loss. Finally here is a map showing the terminus of the Glacier Bay glaciers beginning in 1760-80 (when they were first noted by Europeans). As you can see the melt prior to 1950 was profound.

You're as accurate here as your statement that there are no glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro. In other words abject failure. Do you know anything?

Westwall -

This is really, really poor posting from you.

Do you understand the difference between looking at a single example, and looking at a vast number of glaciers?

If so - then stop presenting single examples, and start to look at the material presented.


PS. I stand corrected about Kilimanjaro's glaciers. I didn't know that it had any - it certainly didn't look to when I flew over it!

This is typical posting for Walleyes. And when you refute his silly posts with information from real sources like the USGS or NOAA, he immediatly claims they are lying and all in on a conspriracy to alter data. Here is a extensive report from the USGS.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1386k/pdf/02_1386K_part1.pdf

The key findings from the comprehensive analysis are the following:
Alexander Archipelago, Aleutian Islands, and Kodiak Island• : Every insular glacier examined showed evidence of thinning and retreat. Some glaciers have disappeared since being mapped in the middle 20th century.
Coast Mountains, St. Elias Mountains, Chugach Mountains, Kenai Mountains, • Wrangell Mountains, Alaska Range, and the Aleutian Range: More than 95 percent of the glaciers ending below an elevation of approximately 1,500 m are retreating and (or) thinning. Of those glaciers that are advancing, many have tidewater termini. The two largest Alaskan glaciers, Bering and Malaspina, are losing several cubic kilometers of ice each year to melting and calving.
Talkeetna Mountains, Wood River Mountains, Kigluaik Mountains, and the • Brooks Range: Every glacier scrutinized showed evidence of retreat. Of 109 glaciers in the Wood River Mountains, all are or were retreating; some have disappeared since they were first mapped, photographed, or imaged.
In spite of the significant changes at lower elevations, not every Alaskan glacier is thinning and retreating. In several ranges, no changes were noted in glaciers situated at higher elevations.
Glaciers that were surging or had recently advanced by surging were also noted. This type of glacier advances by redistributing existing glacier ice over a larger area rather than by increased accumulation. Consequently, following a surge, more ice surface area is exposed to ablation.

 

[Old Rocks]

Steve;



[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change - HM Treasury

 

[Saigon]

This is typical posting for Walleyes. And when you refute his silly posts with information from real sources like the USGS or NOAA, he immediatly claims they are lying and all in on a conspriracy to alter data. Here is a extensive report from the USGS.

.

That kind of posting really does make me angry.

The number of times of this site I have heard people talk about cherry-picking data, and here we see a poster select, from the 130,000 glaciers in the world, 2 which he wants to talk about.

Wall believes we can learn more about glaciers by using a test sample of 0.0000153% - despite the fact that I had previously linked a study which covered some 670 glaciers.

That he ignored.

Priceless.

 

[bobgnote]

No, green energy isn't cost-effective. It is hamstrung, by ****-tards.

If we legalize pot and make ethanol and 25,000 products, including indestructible plastic auto-parts, like Henry Ford already made, green energy instantly decimates prison and petroleum industry, and car-makers since Edsel all look like the assholes they really are.

If we grow just switchgrass and hemp, green energy succeeds, just from the CO2-neutral biomass. All those great gimmicks, like solid-state batteries and ocean-generators can wait a little longer, while we catch up with Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel:

Henry Ford and Rudolf Diesel’s Vision of a Hemp Diesel Revolution « Ganja Farmer's, EMERALD TRIANGLE NEWS ~Marijuana News, Roots and Culture~

Henry Ford And Roudolph Diesel - Hemp History Video

But the problem with state tyranny is like a joke, about that tyrant, the asshole. One day, the parts of the body decided to have a democratic vote, to decide who would be boss. The brain was the early favorite.

But then, the asshole argued, he should be appointed the boss, and if he were not so appointed, he would make trouble. The other body parts objected.

So the asshole slammed himself shut. Nothing could get out. The brain and eyes fogged up. The ears started ringing. The hands started shaking. And Mr.Nose had to smell leakage, from Mr.Asshole's backlogs.

So the asshole won! Just like in real life. Petroleum controls all our shit. Petrol is the reason alcohol and then pot were banned. Al Gore wanks around with fake-'Lord' Monckton and all kinds of skeptic assholes, since Al is also full of shit. He wouldn't support legal pot, the whole time he was Senator or Veep, and now he sells his book and movie, to believers, while letting them land on nuclear power, as the 'clean' energy solution.

Nuclear power is for breaking chromosomes and despoiling all kinds of property, for years and years. Al Gore is a professional masturbator, who is entertaining all kinds of oil company PAC-men, while the acceleration of warming and acidification are underway, and when the food chains get taken out, who cares if humans caused global warming and carbonic acidification, when humans refused to legalize pot or do jack-shit, to re-green anything, while CO2 got into everything and oceans?

Assholes is, as assholes does. Die-offs are happening. If bacteria blooms, and if the acid kills plankton, say goodbye, to the oceanic food chain, and hello, to even more CO2 and methane! Like Mr.Asshole wants, we will eat shit, and die!

 

[Big Fitz]

No, green energy isn't cost-effective. It is hamstrung, by ****-tards.

Oh hey now... you shouldn't be so hard on the ecofascisti demanding things that don't really exist yet and expecting to base our entire energy security on it starting tomorrow. They can't help that they are uncompromising ideological fools.

 

[Saigon]

Bob & Fitz -

No, green energy isn't cost-effective. It is hamstrung, by ****-tards.

Then please look at the model of tidal energy provided earlier and explaim how it is not cost effective.

Again - one single project can provide enough electricity for 4 million people.

It is entirely invisible.

It requires an initial investment of less than a hydro dam or nuclear power station.

Most of the parts required can be produce locally.