The people who are skeptic of climate change are essentially the doogs who after 5 years of Sark's record, still held out hope he would be a great coach. They pointed to shit like Don James mediocre first few seasons, or recruiting rankings, even though it was a dishonest comparison.
The HHB's like us are able to look at all the data, the mountain of evidence that Sark was a mediocre coach, by looking at road record, artificial schedule boosts against shitty OOC and the like. It's the same for people who can look at all the data supporting climate change, observe what's happening around them, and accurately assess what's happening.
You fucks are being doogs.
Global Warmoogs.
One of the most disappointing posts ive ever read. You should he ashamed of yourself.
And all the REAL scientists have listened to skeptics claims, taken them into account when assessing the data, and deemed them unfounded.
Stick to real estate and sports.
You are a fucking idiot.
There is no such thing as consensus in science. It is either fact or not. AGW so far has proven to be a massive fraud. The fucking sun is responsible for heating the earth, not SUVs.
Michael Mann is a fraud. He is Jerry Sandusky part II for the shitty State Penn University. Computer models can be manipulated, just like your young feeble mind.
If the sun was solely responsible for heating the earth and the greenhouse effect didn't exist, the average temperatures on earth would be frigid.
Hth
What the fuck am i reading here? Hahahahaha. So you mean to tell me, way back when, millions of years ago when dinosaurs roamed the world and there wasnt a heater in sight, dino farts helped keep the earths temperature above frigid? Or are we just supposed to assume ancient animals like giganto snakes and monster spiders were ice dwellers? You cheeky son of a bitch collegedoog! Youve done it again!
The people who are skeptic of climate change are essentially the doogs who after 5 years of Sark's record, still held out hope he would be a great coach. They pointed to shit like Don James mediocre first few seasons, or recruiting rankings, even though it was a dishonest comparison.
The HHB's like us are able to look at all the data, the mountain of evidence that Sark was a mediocre coach, by looking at road record, artificial schedule boosts against shitty OOC and the like. It's the same for people who can look at all the data supporting climate change, observe what's happening around them, and accurately assess what's happening.
You fucks are being doogs.
Global Warmoogs.
One of the most disappointing posts ive ever read. You should he ashamed of yourself.
And all the REAL scientists have listened to skeptics claims, taken them into account when assessing the data, and deemed them unfounded.
Stick to real estate and sports.
You are a fucking idiot.
There is no such thing as consensus in science. It is either fact or not. AGW so far has proven to be a massive fraud. The fucking sun is responsible for heating the earth, not SUVs.
Michael Mann is a fraud. He is Jerry Sandusky part II for the shitty State Penn University. Computer models can be manipulated, just like your young feeble mind.
If the sun was solely responsible for heating the earth and the greenhouse effect didn't exist, the average temperatures on earth would be frigid.
Hth
What the fuck am i reading here? Hahahahaha. So you mean to tell me, way back when, millions of years ago when dinosaurs roamed the world and there wasnt a heater in sight, dino farts helped keep the earths temperature above frigid? Or are we just supposed to assume ancient animals like giganto snakes and monster spiders were ice dwellers? You cheeky son of a bitch collegedoog! Youve done it again!
It's a rare occasion that someone is able to so blatantly misunderstand that most greenhouse gases occur naturally, the current Holocene is extremely fragile to changes in atmospheric composition, and the earth was a much different place in the Jurassic period.
So where are the graphs and the science on the cost benefit of doing what to save what?
I'm not playing. I'm just exposing you
The only realistic option before doing irreparable harm to the Earth's climate is to move towards sustainable energy.
I've detailed it so many times that I'm surprised you keep missing it: fossil fuels need to be waned off of. The things we can do right now are discourage the production of coal and petroleum, and encourage the production of a cleaner fuel like natural gas, of which the US has abundant reserves. Blocking the XL pipeline, stopping new coal projects makes sense.
There are things we can do to prolong the amount of time before we get fucked over by global warming. Mainly this entails setting high standards for fuel emissions that decrease average CO2 and Methane output. Another "nuclear" option is to geoengineer the Earth's atmosphere by pumping out sulfur dioxide. This would delay warming for another 10-20 years but could pose other risks. It would be best to avoid this because it only makes sense as a last resort, where the Earth has already warmed roughly 3 degrees Celsius. It only becomes a realistic option about 25-30 years from now based on long term warming trends.
I get that fossil fuels will be the cheaper for a long time, but that's because the infrastructure has been in place for decades, and big oil is sitting on trillions worth of reserves. They have at least another 50-80 years before they have to start worrying about their profits, and stand to lose the most if we shift to renewables. Why do you think the oil lobby is so powerful?
So far Moore's law has been somewhat applicable to the clean energy market. There are cheaper, more efficient innovations being made but it still lags far behind the relative easiness oil. That's why the intermittent process has to keep fossil fuels, and make burning them more efficient, as I've said many times, before the infrastructure for renewables is developed.
Reality is transportation is going to have to continue relying on petroleum until electric engines become more efficient and competitive on a wider scale. We can, however, slowly shift our domestic coal and shale oil production to natural gas to bring energy to the grid.
It's not a perfect plan, but it's the only analysis that makes sense for the planet long term.
If anyone is being exposed, it's the person who takes their cues from Richard Fucking Lindzen.
So where are the graphs and the science on the cost benefit of doing what to save what?
I'm not playing. I'm just exposing you
The only realistic option before doing irreparable harm to the Earth's climate is to move towards sustainable energy.
We have been hearing about irreparable harm for years and years now. First it was by 2000, then 2008, then 2012 etc. why are the constantly and consistently changing these apocalyptic dates back? How come every glacier in the world hasn't melted as they predicted?
So where are the graphs and the science on the cost benefit of doing what to save what?
I'm not playing. I'm just exposing you
The only realistic option before doing irreparable harm to the Earth's climate is to move towards sustainable energy.
We have been hearing about irreparable harm for years and years now. First it was by 2000, then 2008, then 2012 etc. why are the constantly and consistently changing these apocalyptic dates back? How come every glacier in the world hasn't melted as they predicted?
Apocalypic predictions have always been 2050-2100 and beyond, so I don't know where you got that misinformation.
The glaciers are melting. Sea ice in the Arctic is down 60%, North American glaciers are receding. That much is undeniable. It wasn't going to happen immediately though.
You need to look at global warming as a greater trend, not an isolated sequence of years.
Here's a good article from today on rising sea levels and the disappearing glaciers:
The fact that the two fucktards with actual Geology degrees on this website haven't said anything in this thread speaks volumes ( @Mad_Son and myself)
One of us has a fucking PhD and the other has worked on the single most "important" ice core when it comes to understanding the last 40,000 years of the Earth's Climate
I haven't read a 1/4 of the stuff you wrote @CollegeDoog but pretending you are an expert in thermodynamics, geology, atmospheric science, Macro economics, micro economics, climate change, anthropological warming, solar power, politics, wind power, farming, and 15 other impossibly complicated things all while acting like they are simple might be hurting your cause here...
The fact that the two fucktards with actual Geology degrees on this website haven't said anything in this thread speaks volumes ( @Mad_Son and myself)
One of us has a fucking PhD and the other has worked on the single most "important" ice core when it comes to understanding the last 40,000 years of the Earth's Climate
I haven't read a 1/4 of the stuff you wrote @CollegeDoog but pretending you are an expert in thermodynamics, geology, atmospheric science, Macro economics, micro economics, climate change, anthropological warming, solar power, politics, wind power, farming, and 15 other impossibly complicated things all while acting like they are simple might be hurting your cause here...
So where are the graphs and the science on the cost benefit of doing what to save what?
I'm not playing. I'm just exposing you
The only realistic option before doing irreparable harm to the Earth's climate is to move towards sustainable energy.
We have been hearing about irreparable harm for years and years now. First it was by 2000, then 2008, then 2012 etc. why are the constantly and consistently changing these apocalyptic dates back? How come every glacier in the world hasn't melted as they predicted?
Apocalypic predictions have always been 2050-2100 and beyond, so I don't know where you got that misinformation.
The glaciers are melting. Sea ice in the Arctic is down 60%, North American glaciers are receding. That much is undeniable. It wasn't going to happen immediately though.
You need to look at global warming as a greater trend, not an isolated sequence of years.
Here's a good article from today on rising sea levels and the disappearing glaciers:
All of a sudden collegedoog is too busy when we get to the heart of the matter. Nowhere in the volumes of shit he has posted is there any cost benefit analysis or any science on what we have to do when to get what result. For such a settled science that is so dialed in that is very strange.
I guess we'll just buy some fucked up lightbulbs and put even more taxes on fuel and let it play out.
Pathetic
The thing you can't seem to comprehend is that there is no easy fix to this problem. We can't continue to rely on fossil fuels and we can't immediately cut off the head.
You want me to give you an easy solution to the problem. The thing is I can't.
I can disprove that the AGW skeptics are dumbfucks, however.
So in other words, your settled science with all the answers can't provide the only answer that matters. So go ahead and shut the fuck up until it can. You haven't proved shit
The science is settled.
The solutions are in progress.
Hth
$1 Trillion on "Experiments" ? GO FUCK YOURSELF AND DIAFF!
The solutions are in progress. We just don't have any cost benefit analysis or idea what they are. Too busy scaring the sheep. Have faith
We know what the solutions are.
They're just in the infancy of development.
Renewables will become cheaper over time with more efficient technology.
Thanks for playing!
In 1979, I was interviewed by NBC News regarding the cost/benefit of Jimmy Carter's 25% federal tax credit PLUS Jerry Brown's 50% tax credit (CA) for WINDMILLS. My answer was, "History will decide." HOW MANY MORE FUCKING YEARS DOES IT TAKE TO DECIDE THAT THIS CRAP IS BULLSHIT?
BTW, did you know that the Energy Department does NOT count hydo-electric as RENEWABLE? THEY DO THAT TO MAKE THEIR FUCKING NUMBERS LOOK BETTER AND TO KEEP SUBSIDIES AWAY FROM HYDRO-ELECTRIC!
Comments
They're just in the infancy of development.
Renewables will become cheaper over time with more efficient technology.
Thanks for playing!
I'm not playing. I'm just exposing you
But congratulations, you did!
I've detailed it so many times that I'm surprised you keep missing it: fossil fuels need to be waned off of. The things we can do right now are discourage the production of coal and petroleum, and encourage the production of a cleaner fuel like natural gas, of which the US has abundant reserves. Blocking the XL pipeline, stopping new coal projects makes sense.
There are things we can do to prolong the amount of time before we get fucked over by global warming. Mainly this entails setting high standards for fuel emissions that decrease average CO2 and Methane output. Another "nuclear" option is to geoengineer the Earth's atmosphere by pumping out sulfur dioxide. This would delay warming for another 10-20 years but could pose other risks. It would be best to avoid this because it only makes sense as a last resort, where the Earth has already warmed roughly 3 degrees Celsius. It only becomes a realistic option about 25-30 years from now based on long term warming trends.
I get that fossil fuels will be the cheaper for a long time, but that's because the infrastructure has been in place for decades, and big oil is sitting on trillions worth of reserves. They have at least another 50-80 years before they have to start worrying about their profits, and stand to lose the most if we shift to renewables. Why do you think the oil lobby is so powerful?
So far Moore's law has been somewhat applicable to the clean energy market. There are cheaper, more efficient innovations being made but it still lags far behind the relative easiness oil. That's why the intermittent process has to keep fossil fuels, and make burning them more efficient, as I've said many times, before the infrastructure for renewables is developed.
Reality is transportation is going to have to continue relying on petroleum until electric engines become more efficient and competitive on a wider scale. We can, however, slowly shift our domestic coal and shale oil production to natural gas to bring energy to the grid.
It's not a perfect plan, but it's the only analysis that makes sense for the planet long term.
If anyone is being exposed, it's the person who takes their cues from Richard Fucking Lindzen.
The glaciers are melting. Sea ice in the Arctic is down 60%, North American glaciers are receding. That much is undeniable. It wasn't going to happen immediately though.
You need to look at global warming as a greater trend, not an isolated sequence of years.
Here's a good article from today on rising sea levels and the disappearing glaciers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/science/earth/grappling-with-sea-level-rise-sooner-not-later.html?hp&_r=0
One of us has a fucking PhD and the other has worked on the single most "important" ice core when it comes to understanding the last 40,000 years of the Earth's Climate
I haven't read a 1/4 of the stuff you wrote @CollegeDoog but pretending you are an expert in thermodynamics, geology, atmospheric science, Macro economics, micro economics, climate change, anthropological warming, solar power, politics, wind power, farming, and 15 other impossibly complicated things all while acting like they are simple might be hurting your cause here...
But it has entertained me, so there's that
Obviously the problem is nowhere near as urgent as the left wants to make it so they can jack the price on oil even more and fuck with my lightbulbs.
While we still can why not light yourself on fire?
The solutions are in progress.
Hth
$1 Trillion on "Experiments" ? GO FUCK YOURSELF AND DIAFF!
That chart was fucktarded.
BTW, did you know that the Energy Department does NOT count hydo-electric as RENEWABLE? THEY DO THAT TO MAKE THEIR FUCKING NUMBERS LOOK BETTER AND TO KEEP SUBSIDIES AWAY FROM HYDRO-ELECTRIC!