They call it stone cold cash for a reason. lol
2 Likes
on top of all the fear mongering, climate fascists are becoming millionaires off of the morons
3 Likes
climate fascism is irrelevant because it does nothing to stop the countries that have gladly taken American industry and have tripled unregulated production. Liberal supremacists need to check their labels.
4 Likes
the ‘money people’ are buying property on the beaches and telling your kids to demand that you pay more taxes to them, to save the planet. Definitely suspicious. It’s an amazing strategy.
3 Likes
So two paid lobbyists for the energy sector (not climate scientists) pull together a dozen or two articles from the last 50 years showing predictions that have been wrong form media publications, therefor AGW is a hoax? Solid logic there I tell ya.
In the last 50 years, AGW has been studied by numerous scientists. Would you care to see what Exxon and Shell’s own internal climate studies were showing?
You’ve cited (of course) the “global cooling” craze of the ‘70’s… that was non-existent, save for a couple of articles in the media. I’ve linked before as to how they happened, but I digress. At the time those articles were published, among scientific publications, there were less than 10 discussing global cooling, with dozens of others warning of global warming linked to increases in CO2 concentration. Of those that discussed global cooling, most were studying the effects of SO2, which inconveniently does cool the atmosphere. Fortunately, we corrected that back in the late ‘80s-‘90s.
Around the same time some of these articles were written, the National Cancer Institute didn’t believe smoking caused lung cancer. When Einstein was doing his thing back in the first part of the 20th century, he believed nuclear energy could never be harnessed. Point is, science can be, and is wrong. But science learns from the past. Would you dare pull the position of the NCI from 50 years ago to argue that theres no risk from smoking? Would you claim Einstein an idiot for making the statement he did? I would hope not. The ability for us to analyze and understand data today is light years ahead of where it was only a few decades ago.
And no, fully realize none of this matters to you, just putting it out there for the res to the universe…
5 Likes
LIBERALISM in the USA s a religion and they worship at the alter of the Global Warming. The environmentalist are a secular breed of zealots who want to impose punishment on Americans for the carbon footprint sins of the entire world.
The only thing green about GW is the color of $$money$$ that includes high priest hucksters like Al Gore who get rich and the authoritarian governments who impose taxes on the citizenry. They could give a damn about what condition the earth is in the just want the $$$ and the power.
2 Likes
between 1900 and 1999 austin averaged 11 days a year over 100.
since 2000 that number is over 30
this year we are at 52,5th highest on record
we havent had a day with a high below 90 since mid june
globat warming is real
1 Like
Glad to see you getting up to speed. Science is based on proof of theory…Not simply theory.
How many of the news articles cited were referring to peer reviewed research I wonder.
I do not get how throwing an insulating blanket on the planet which makes it hotter is somehow controversial.
1 Like
It will all be fixed one day, the debt bubble will burst and everyone will be to poor to buy energy related goods. Heating and cooling the house will be a luxury as will be driving it should lower the emissions.
Scientists have been known to be right sometimes too. You are welcome to debate the science of AGW. Go ahead, nobody is stopping you.
He will not and cannot.
are you suggesting there should be scientific debate on this topic?
address topic please. not posters
I’m suggesting that skeptics on this site certainly seem eager to debate, in their unique way, the merits of AGW.
All my climate science colleagues are rolling in moola. And I’ve made a ton of moola teaching science. Fastest way to billions of moola is to get your climate science on.
1 Like
TM talks about not addressing posters? Hmmm.
Really? How much tax revenue to date has been collected by these politicians scamming innocent “sheople” on AGW? I mean, the AGW debate has been going on for some time now, but let’s just go back to Gore during Clintons term, since that seems to be one of the denier’s favorite. So, a bit over 20 years… how much tax revenue collected since then from the AGW scam? When you quantify that number, then ask yourself, “Ok, now why would they continue this scam if it’s such a financial failure”? I mean seriously, I’m guessing there’s more money to be made by sheople that succumb to cult of personalities… say, maybe people paying $15 for black Sharpies that are normally sold for $3. lol.
You know, people are doing plenty of other things that don’t involve taxing to combat AGW. For example, in CA they set stricter admission standards that are int he process of trying to be rolled back by the Trump admin. Here in CO, we have new regs in place to curtail methane leaks from NG infrastructure. Both utility companies and private individuals are turning to renewables more often as their costs come down and efficiency increases. And a variety of companies are trying to bring carbon sequestration to the market. There’s more, but the point is that every single one of these things help and they are not a carbon tax.
Here’s how I see it. You either believe the earth is warming or you don’t. The empirical data is pretty clear… we are warming, when in all likelihood we should be cooling. If you believe it is warming, then hopefully you take the time to understand what the consequences are and on what sort of timeline. Furthermore, if you believe the earth is warming, then the only responsible thing one can do is to develop solutions that curtail the warming trend, or at least support others pursuing those solutions. You don’t like the idea of a carbon tax, fine, then develop alternative solutions. A carbon tax is not the end-all here, but taxation has been used forever to discourage certain actions/activities. But don’t like it? Then offer up something else…
Unless of course you just don’t believe the earth is warming… that’s just a dismissal of empirical data that shows otherwise and there’s no argument in the world that could change that persons mind.
1 Like
The earth is warming and it is induced by humans. Scientists are anything but naive, but clearly the lay “scientists” on this board seem to know better. Whatever. Humans actually have done much worse. But that’s another story. The question that confounds people, and that contributes to denial, is what exactly should be done about it. That’s an important question. Where I may disagree with wayoutwest is that we really cannot do anything about it. There is no political will and there seems to be no short-term economic advantage. And that’s what people do–think short term.
So the question becomes adaptation. Adaptation to what? Ultimately it depends on the total CO2/methane contribution to the atmosphere. A simple reduction of the rate of emissions is not the issue. It’s the total contribution that counts because it takes so long for these gases to be scrubbed from the atmosphere.
So what does the future have in store? In part it depends on the total hydrocarbons burned. My opinion is that all the hydrocarbons that can be burned will be burned. But there is a lot of disagreement on the amount of hydrocarbons that ultimately will be extracted. So predictions will vary.
With regard to predictions, whether a decade or two or three or more off is largely irrelevant. These are small time intervals compared to the span of human prehistory/history. As somebody said, prediction is difficult, especially about the future. But the end game is pretty clear.
So there will be a pulse of CO2 entering the atmosphere. It will have a long tail as long as there are hydrocarbons to burn. But the effect will last for centuries until the CO2 eventually is scrubbed. It is likely, then, at some point, the natural cycles will then become more dominant and the earth will eventually enter another glaciation. That is the long term trend. No, I do not think there will be a runaway warming event that will turn us into Venus.
I think that wayoutwest is the more optimistic of the two of us.
Three of my most favorite quotes come from the great American anthropologist, Marvin Harris. For anybody still reading, here they are:
(1) “All rapidly intensifying systems of production, whether they be socialist, capitalist, hydraulic, neolithic, or paleolithic, face a common dilemma. The increment in energy invested per unit time in production will inevitably overburden the self-renewing, self-cleansing, self-generating capacities of the ecosystem. Regardless of which mode of production is involved, there is only one means of avoiding the catastrophic consequences of declining efficiencies: to shift to more efficient technologies. For the past 500 years Western scientific technology has been competing against the most rapidly and relentlessly intensifying system of production in the history of our species.”
(2) “It is clear that the major transformations of human social life have hitherto never corresponded to the consciously held objectives of the historical participants.”
(3) “In the meantime, people with deep personal commitments to a particular vision of the future are perfectly justified in struggling toward their goal, even if the outcome now seems remote and improbable. In life, as in any game whose outcome depends on both luck and skill, the rational response to bad odds is to try harder.”
1 Like
Bless you heart…
