“Climate Hustle:

[Elfiero]

Dipshit, the total amount of carbon, just like the total amount of water, is constant in the earth's closed loop system.

So you notice something like C02 being released into the atmosphere....and then you have no clue what happens. Does it stay, does it go, does it get recycled (like water in the hydrological cycle), or is it shot off into space?

If you tried, even just a bit, you would understand that C02 has a natural cycle.....but you don't seem to care, because it doesn't fit your false narrative.

S.V. if you happen to peruse this thread this is what I was speaking of.

The idiocy is blinding isn't it?

The question was not for you but since you were dumb enough where the other guy wasn't.....

About 40% of the EXTRA CO2 that we are adding to the atmosphere ends up in the oceans, the rest ends up in the atmosphere.

That extra CO2 that you claim to "have no clue" as to what happens to it....

The Great Barrier Reef if it could speak would tell you all about it.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/04/26/3769440/great-barrier-reef-bleaching/

Record-Breaking Hot Ocean Temperatures Are Frying The Great Barrier Reef

The Great Barrier Reef’s coral is dying, and it may never be the same again.
Last month, as historically high ocean temperatures bathed the waters around the Great Barrier Reef, the Australian government raised the coral bleaching threat to the highest level possible.
On an aerial reconnaissance trip from Cairns to Papua New Guinea, researchers observed the parts of the reef that are supposed to be the most pristine and vibrant. What they saw was chilling.
“This has been the saddest research trip of my life,” said Prof. Terry Hughes, convener of the National Coral Bleaching Taskforce. “Almost without exception, every reef we flew across showed consistently high levels of bleaching, from the reef slope right up onto the top of the reef. We flew for 4000km in the most pristine parts of the Great Barrier Reef and saw only four reefs that had no bleaching. The severity is much greater than in earlier bleaching events in 2002 or 1998.”

 

[SteelChip]

S.V. if you happen to peruse this thread this is what I was speaking of.

The idiocy is blinding isn't it?

The internet is a terrible place to go converting unbelievers, and thankfully few have tried. It’s only when the topic comes up as a point of contention that things can get ugly fast.

There are three kinds of people on the internet you can’t have a conversation with: abortion activists, religious zealots and global warming activists.

“I don’t believe in global warming, I believe in the facts,” the zealot will pontificate proudly. It isn’t that I’m surprised anyone would believe in man-made climate change. It’s a readily accepted theory by a majority of people and the scientific community. I would, however, caution that we continue to use the word theory in discussing the topic.

It’s difficult for a lot of people to believe the hype about global warming when scientists consistently get their predictions wrong. And sometimes the scientific community doesn’t just get it wrong; they don’t even come close. The best thing to do when somebody goes on about the Armageddon is to smile, nod approvingly, and change the subject. Otherwise you risk the possibility of being called a heretic and burned at the metaphorical stake.

I have a live and let live attitude. If you want to believe that glacial meltwater spells the doom of the planet, so be it. Just don’t force me to wear the uniform and march in the parades with you.

 

[Confluence]

S.V. if you happen to peruse this thread this is what I was speaking of.

The idiocy is blinding isn't it?

The question was not for you but since you were dumb enough where the other guy wasn't.....

About 40% of the EXTRA CO2 that we are adding to the atmosphere ends up in the oceans, the rest ends up in the atmosphere.

That extra CO2 that you claim to "have no clue" as to what happens to it....

The Great Barrier Reef if it could speak would tell you all about it.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/04/26/3769440/great-barrier-reef-bleaching/

Record-Breaking Hot Ocean Temperatures Are Frying The Great Barrier Reef

The Great Barrier Reef’s coral is dying, and it may never be the same again.
Last month, as historically high ocean temperatures bathed the waters around the Great Barrier Reef, the Australian government raised the coral bleaching threat to the highest level possible.
On an aerial reconnaissance trip from Cairns to Papua New Guinea, researchers observed the parts of the reef that are supposed to be the most pristine and vibrant. What they saw was chilling.
“This has been the saddest research trip of my life,” said Prof. Terry Hughes, convener of the National Coral Bleaching Taskforce. “Almost without exception, every reef we flew across showed consistently high levels of bleaching, from the reef slope right up onto the top of the reef. We flew for 4000km in the most pristine parts of the Great Barrier Reef and saw only four reefs that had no bleaching. The severity is much greater than in earlier bleaching events in 2002 or 1998.”

Dipshit,

Explain the contribution of C02 from seafloor spreading, and how the Pacific Decadal Oscillator affects global weather, and then you may convert me to your -ism.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I am not a lawyer nor am I pretending to be one.

That's fine. We enjoy watching you pretend to be many other things you're not.

 

[Superman]

Lol like clockwork, phony graphs and all!

No I don't have a doctorate. I have a masters from U.C. Berkeley in HCI, and a masters from Boston U. In behavioral science.

Just because Legates is a climate scientist doesn't mean he can't be bought.

Is that not what you clowns tell me when it comes to the 97% consensus?

Am l to believe that thousands of scientists on the AGW side are ALL on the take for grants, but the handful of denier scientists are acting altruistically?

Of course not. You're not even that stupid.

As far as my legal analysis of Trumps shenanigans goes, it wasn't my analysis. I read it in an article.

Some organization has since had their lawyers file a complaint with The Justice Dept. so apparently they think they are on to something. I am not intellectual but am pretending to be one.

fixed that for you. dumbass.

 

[Superman]

The severity is much greater than in earlier bleaching events in 2002 or 1998.”

so it's ... cyclical? interesting indeed. please, tell us more.

 

[Steeltime]

Lol like clockwork, phony graphs and all!

What a fraud and coward you are. Data show that the climate models are not accurately projecting temperatures? "Phony graphs!! Ignore the man behind the curtain!"

No I don't have a doctorate. I have a masters from U.C. Berkeley in HCI, and a masters from Boston U. In behavioral science.

You have a masters in human-computer interaction? Talk about a waste of educational money. "What is your degree in? Human-computer interaction? No, seriously, what field?? Oh, you ARE being serious ..."

And as to your non-doctoral degree in behavioral science? You need to go back and re-read several of your rambling, borderline psychopathic comments. Put your education to use and diagnose yourself. Here, let me give it a go: assholeitis.

Just because Legates is a climate scientist doesn't mean he can't be bought.

So, tell me, non-doctor, what is that condition where you think that people are conspiring against you? And you have an unreasonable belief that those who proffer different views are bought, or evil, or trying to destroy the world?

Yep, that fits you, doesn't it?

Is that not what you clowns tell me when it comes to the 97% consensus?

What I have shown is that the 97% claim is simply not true.

The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

The author who analyzed Cook's 97% claim actually spoke to the authors of the studies cited as supporting the concept of AGW. Here are some actual statements from these authors about the studies cited by Cook:

Craig Idso: "It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."

Nir J, Shaviv, Ph.D: "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."

The examples of the actual authors of the studies cited by Cook refuting his categorization are too numerous to list here. That is why I gave you the link - read the truth.

Am l to believe that thousands of scientists on the AGW side are ALL on the take for grants, but the handful of denier scientists are acting altruistically?.

Your logical error is known as reductio ad absurdum.

Description: A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/151/Reductio_ad_Absurdum

For perhaps the tenth time, I will state - once again, very clearly - my position on AGW: Of course it is reasonable to believe that emission of greenhouse gases have an effect on climate. That is not the dispute.

The dispute is, "Can the climate models accurately categorize how much warming is due to man-made CO2 emissions, particularly future effect on climate? If not, then how can we possibly justify spending trillions of dollars by not using the most accessible and most efficient energy sources we have?"

Time and again, I have noted that my criticism of AGW is the contention that "we must act now!!" No, we act when we have credible reason to act, and act rationally. Also, the simple fact is that third-world countries have told western nations to **** off when it comes to fossil fuel use. Those nations say - somewhat convincingly, I might add - that the western nations became rich utilizing accessible, affordable fossil fuels, so don't expect India and China to convert to expensive solar energy, or wind farms.

As far as my legal analysis of Trumps shenanigans goes, it wasn't my analysis. I read it in an article.

Some organization has since had their lawyers file a complaint with The Justice Dept. so apparently they think they are on to something. I am not a lawyer nor am I pretending to be one.

Riiiiiight ... but you fail to mention that YOU wrote the following:

It seems that cheese ball/pretend racist Donald Trump has violated federal law(not the first time I'm sure), and Ben Carson is what African-Americans have always known him to be: a house n*****.

http://steelernation.com/showthread.php?6985-Trump-can-be-prosecuted-Carson-is-Carson

So stop pretending to know anything about fields other than human-computer interaction and non-doctoral level psychology.

In other words, nothing of merit.

 

[Superman]

we should pass legislation banning volcanos.

 

[Steeltime]

we should pass legislation banning volcanos.

Who could be against volcano control? Only right-wing volcano zealots.

 

[Iron95]

98% of all "green house gasses" are caused by..........................water vapor. So unless you want to get rid of all the clouds, please shut the **** up.

 

[SteelChip]

Let's not forget the tie-in messages the Libs like to use to justify their convoluted messages.

 

[Spike]

we should pass legislation banning volcanos.

And Democrats...and globalists....and 'Green' anything


Fossil Fuels Will Still Provide 75 Percent Of Energy In 2040, Despite Trillions In Green

The world will use 48 percent more energy by 2040, three-quarters of which will come from coal, oil or natural gas, according to projections made Thursday by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

The report states that most of the world’s new energy use will come from developing countries, particularly China and India, and most of the 75 percent of that energy will be coal, oil or natural gas. Only a relatively small percentage of the world’s energy will come from wind and solar power despite massive subsidies, contrary to the claims from environmental groups like The Sierra Club.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/12/f...despite-trillions-in-green-subsidies/?print=1

 

[deljzc]

I'm kind of on my own island on this debate.

I fully believe in global warming. I firmly believe man and burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming.

But I don't believe the "sky is going to fall". Man will adapt. It will cost billions. Millions of people will displaced from where they call "home". Species will die. Ecosystems will change (some drastically).

So what?

First, I don't think it can be stopped. Man's impact on the environment is so much greater to me than just our energy use. That's just a small part of it. We are killing just as many ecosystems and species in our search for food as we are burning fossil fuels.

Second, I can not reconcile the hypocrisy of me, as a U.S. citizen, after our country energized and powered our industrial revolution and rise into a 1st world civilization on the backs of fossil fuel and environmental destruction lecture other countries they can't do the same. Do I think we can educate them on some of the missteps we discovered along the way? Absolutely. Some pollution is not worth it, no matter the immediate cost savings.

Third, the topic of global warming is being politicized by the left as a means of wealth distribution with no concessions from 3rd world countries on how they will control their populations (which is still the undermining factor of mankind's impact on the planet - be it energy use, food use, water use or whatever).

There is no reason for India to have 1.2 billion people. There is no reason 50% of the worlds population live in a 2000 mile circle around Hong Kong.

Population control is still the fundamental message of any "environmentalist" and without some sort of debate on that with countries in Africa, Southeast Asia, India or the Middle East, discussing where they get their energy (fossil fuels vs. non-fossil fuels) is kind of pointless in my opinion.

There is some evidence that growth rates are declining, which I think will take care of global warming in and of itself over the long term as I do not see the evidence of catastrophic effects of global warming (at least nothing that mankind can't adapt to). But that is still the message.

1. Control population
2. Provide cheap energy to get people clean water/sewage/healthcare
3. Population urbanizes and enters global manufacturing workforce
4. As urban areas become polluted, a shift in energy use to cleaner solutions.

Trying to "skip ahead" is the last step is stupid. It doesn't work.

 

[POP]

Follow the $, it NEVER lets you down. The same usual suspects are who stand to make trillions if the carbon tax crap becomes a reality. Funny how only scientists that do studies that prove man made climate change is real seem to get grants.

 

[SteelChip]

Who could be against volcano control? Only right-wing volcano zealots.

 

[Stewey]

.



All you need to know right here. We are currently in an ice age. At one time the earth had no ice at it poles....Oh my God, the ice is melting! What about the polar bears!!

 

[Spike]

Close

We are now comfortably halfway through an interglacial period - just like many many times before.

It too will eventually come to an end - THEN you will see massive climate changes - just like the last time, and the time before that, and the time before that - it's nothing NEW - it's a CYCLE - that has nothing to do with man

A warm earth makes it a happy earth for life. Humans should be happy it's warm - plants are.

Ice is death - warmth is life.

 

[Rod Farva]

The Great Barrier Reef if it could speak would tell you all about it.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/04/26/3769440/great-barrier-reef-bleaching/

Record-Breaking Hot Ocean Temperatures Are Frying The Great Barrier Reef

The Great Barrier Reef’s coral is dying, and it may never be the same again.
Last month, as historically high ocean temperatures bathed the waters around the Great Barrier Reef, the Australian government raised the coral bleaching threat to the highest level possible.
On an aerial reconnaissance trip from Cairns to Papua New Guinea, researchers observed the parts of the reef that are supposed to be the most pristine and vibrant. What they saw was chilling.
“This has been the saddest research trip of my life,” said Prof. Terry Hughes, convener of the National Coral Bleaching Taskforce. “Almost without exception, every reef we flew across showed consistently high levels of bleaching, from the reef slope right up onto the top of the reef. We flew for 4000km in the most pristine parts of the Great Barrier Reef and saw only four reefs that had no bleaching. The severity is much greater than in earlier bleaching events in 2002 or 1998.”

However coral losses on the reef between 1995 and 2009 were largely offset by growth of new corals.[51] An overall analysis of coral loss found that coral populations on the Great Barrier Reef had declined by 50.7% from 1985 to 2012, but with only about 10% of that decline attributable to bleaching, and the remaining 90% caused about equally by tropical cyclones and by predation by crown-of-thorns starfishes.[52]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching

......Ooops. Oh and coral bleaching can also occur as a result of a lack of.......wait for it.........


CO2.

 

[SteelChip]

If ya can't beat them, then ya just have to shut them out of the equation...period. No dissension or apposing views will be tolerated from this point forward. So take that you pieces of **** deniers !!

Portland school board bans climate change-denying materials

In a move spearheaded by environmentalists, the Portland Public Schools board unanimously approved a resolution aimed at eliminating doubt of climate change and its causes in schools.

“It is unacceptable that we have textbooks in our schools that spread doubt about the human causes and urgency of the crisis,” said Lincoln High School student Gaby Lemieux in board testimony. “Climate education is not a niche or a specialization, it is the minimum requirement for my generation to be successful in our changing world.”

The resolution passed Tuesday evening calls for the school district to get rid of textbooks or other materials that cast doubt on whether climate change is occurring and that the activity of human beings is responsible. The resolution also directs the superintendent and staff to develop an implementation plan for “curriculum and educational opportunities that address climate change and climate justice in all Portland Public Schools.”
http://portlandtribune.com/sl/30784...l-board-bans-climate-change-denying-materials

 

[CharlesDavenport]

I can't believe that the parents are going to let that happen. Unreal. And WTF is climate justice?

 

[hamster]

I can't believe that the parents are going to let that happen. Unreal. And WTF is climate justice?

Portland. ....where 20 year olds go to retire.

 

[SteelChip]

. Unreal. And WTF is climate justice?

Ya might as well get familiar with the term Chuck, we are in a war that involves a whole lot of potential profits for people willing to sell their souls to the minions of academia bent on the destruction of progress. I don't see how they can continue the farce after the publicized scandals involving green energy failures and wasted tax money, but just like socialism, even with repeated embarrassing failures, they just won't give it up.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Climate justice is a term used for framing global warming as an ethical and political issue, rather than one that is purely environmental or physical in nature. This is done by relating the effects of climate change to concepts of justice, particularly environmental justice and social justice and by examining issues such as equality, human rights, collective rights, and the historical responsibilities for climate change. A fundamental proposition of climate justice is that those who are least responsible for climate change suffer its gravest consequences.[1][2][3] Occasionally, the term is also used to mean actual legal action on climate change issues.[

Kinda like disparate impact, "we gonna punish those that we say are guilty of stuff we say they did, 'cause we say it weren't right"..."and you can't say **** about it 'cause we gonna hide all them apposing supposed arguments you think you got".

 

[Spike]

Back in the real world


Largest solar power plant in the world bursts into flames

The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System located near the California-Nevada border, burst into flames when some of the thousands of mirrors that focus sunlight on water towers became misalinged and started an electrical cable fire.

The plant was built with a $1.6 billion taxpayer guaranteed loan and is run by a consortium of companies that include BrightSource Energy, NRG Energy and Google.

Ivanpah has been plagued with troubles since the beginning. It has failed to meet production targets, generating only about 75% of the power that was promised. It also regularly incinerates birds and blinds pilots as the mirrors reflect sunlight.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...er_plant_in_the_world_bursts_into_flames.html

 

[POP]

However coral losses on the reef between 1995 and 2009 were largely offset by growth of new corals.[51] An overall analysis of coral loss found that coral populations on the Great Barrier Reef had declined by 50.7% from 1985 to 2012, but with only about 10% of that decline attributable to bleaching, and the remaining 90% caused about equally by tropical cyclones and by predation by crown-of-thorns starfishes.[52]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching

......Ooops. Oh and coral bleaching can also occur as a result of a lack of.......wait for it.........


CO2.

Yup, some coral dies, other coral grows. It's always been that way, but wait, it's man-made CO2's fault!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oddly enough, who stands to lose cash and who stands to gain $ if we start taxing CO2 and what have you?

Massive gain in wealth: The wealthiest families on earth and their bedfellows.
Gouging us with more taxes that will have no impact on the environment: EVERYONE ELSE ON EARTH.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...n-tax-pushed-billionaires-real-risky-business

 

[POP]

Back in the real world


Largest solar power plant in the world bursts into flames

The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System located near the California-Nevada border, burst into flames when some of the thousands of mirrors that focus sunlight on water towers became misalinged and started an electrical cable fire.

The plant was built with a $1.6 billion taxpayer guaranteed loan and is run by a consortium of companies that include BrightSource Energy, NRG Energy and Google.

Ivanpah has been plagued with troubles since the beginning. It has failed to meet production targets, generating only about 75% of the power that was promised. It also regularly incinerates birds and blinds pilots as the mirrors reflect sunlight.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...er_plant_in_the_world_bursts_into_flames.html

Yea, because we all know there haven't been any disasters from drilling oil.