Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[keepthefaith]

no. The energy companies with gas, coal etc. just have the advantage now because they are scaled up to production. Solar, wind and a few others would work--are working--once they get a bigger market share and when a few more technologies make them even better, like more battery storage. The government could absolutely give the industry another boost and it would help. You think all those advances in avionics in the 40's and 50's were done alone with private industry? Nope. It was the government that got us to the moon.

 

 

 

Tell you what would give the industry a boost....

 

Give people the option to pay double their electric bill and apply the overage to the higher cost per kWh to wind/solar production. No need for the government to get in between renewable energy production and the will of the people.

[row_33]

nuclear is the option for energy, not even second place

 

but there are obvious problems, exacerbated by the same folks screaming about how a smokestack is changing the weather on Mars.

[B-Man]

GLOBAL WARMING? NO SO FAST SAY SCIENTISTS!

 

The climatistas really are a fun and lovable bunch to watch. Also pathetic.

They are victims of their own doomsday scenarios of inexorably rising greenhouse gas levels and the parade of horribles soon to follow. The Paris Accord, even if fully implemented, will barely slow any future warming accord to the standard climate orthodoxy (better known as “The Consensus”). That’s why the former NASA chief climatista James Hansen called the Paris Accord “a fraud.”

What do you do when, having told us for more than 20 years that “we only have ten years left” to act, the deadline passes and we haven’t got anywhere close to a pathway to stabilize (let alone reduce) carbon emissions? You change the scenario is what you do.

{SNIP}

What’s really going on here, of course, is that slowing the rate of predicted global warming is necessary to keep the climate cargo cult going, especially the alternative energy racket, not to mention the climate diplomacy circus. That’s what the actual Nature Geoscience article really says if you want to suffer through the whole thing. The very last sentence gives the whole game away:

Our analysis suggests that ‘pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5◦C’ is not chasing a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require a significant strengthening of the NDCs

[Nationally Determined Contributions]

at the first opportunity in 2020 to hedge against the risks of a higher-than expected climate response and/or economic, technical or political impediments to sustained reductions at historically unprecedented rates after 2030.

Translation: Global warming models have overestimated warming, so we need to double down on global climate policy! Yeah, that’s the ticket.

 

[row_33]

man is just a fluke that will soon disappear, which is well encouraged by many writers on the left, big deal, nature will go on

 

embrace it climate folk

[Tiberius]

 

Tell you what would give the industry a boost....

 

Give people the option to pay double their electric bill and apply the overage to the higher cost per kWh to wind/solar production. No need for the government to get in between renewable energy production and the will of the people.

That would go against human nature and wouldn't work

[DC Tom]

That would go against human nature and wouldn't work

 

:lol: :lol:

[grinreaper]

That would go against human nature and wouldn't work

So in other words, we need the government to tell us what is best for us?

[B-Man]

[Gary M]

That would go against human nature and wouldn't work

 

Resistance is futile, you must assimilate.

[IDBillzFan]

I got a laugh in the thread at TBD about the near record warmth in Buffalo for the games, and someone wrote "Buy a hybrid."

 

Yep. That'll fix it.

 

You get a hybrid. And YOU get a hybrid. And EVERYONE gets a hybrid! And together we'll bring down the summer temperatures in Buffalo.

[row_33]

and pray in front of volcanoes so that they won't erupt

 

in the name of the liberal goddess Hillary

[unbillievable]

So a liberal friend told me that he doesn't care if the models keep getting the timeline wrong, it only matters that they are showing us the direction it's going, which is total global apocalypse; even if it takes 1000 years.

 

So I asked him if he was willing to go back to the stone age to stop it. He said "it's better than doing nothing."

 

Can't really argue further than that.

 

Some people want to live like cave-men and others do not. That's the real difference in this debate.

[/dev/null]

So a liberal friend told me that he doesn't care if the models keep getting the timeline wrong, it only matters that they are showing us the direction it's going, which is total global apocalypse; even if it takes 1000 years.

 

So I asked him if he was willing to go back to the stone age to stop it. He said "it's better than doing nothing."

 

Can't really argue further than that.

 

Some people want to live like cave-men and others do not. That's the real difference in this debate.

 

It's not so much that they want to live like cave-men. I'd say it's more accurate they want to live like serfs

[DC Tom]

So a liberal friend told me that he doesn't care if the models keep getting the timeline wrong, it only matters that they are showing us the direction it's going, which is total global apocalypse; even if it takes 1000 years.

 

So I asked him if he was willing to go back to the stone age to stop it. He said "it's better than doing nothing."

 

Can't really argue further than that.

 

Some people want to live like cave-men and others do not. That's the real difference in this debate.

 

No, they want others to live like cave-men. If they wanted to live like cave-men, they would be already.

 

Or they just want others to die. Most radical environmentalists advocate policies that would ultimately kill a couple billion people.

[Taro T]

No, they want others to live like cave-men. If they wanted to live like cave-men, they would be already.

 

Or they just want others to die. Most radical environmentalists advocate policies that would ultimately kill a couple billion people.

But, it reeaaaly isn't fair that better farming practices, a reduction in wars, GMO's etc. made 'The Population Bomb' so inaccurate. Ehrlich was a visionary & his vision should come to be.

 

It's far more important that patron saints be proven to be righteous than 3rd world citizens lead full lives. Non-organically farmed foods will kill EVERYONE.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Taro T

[row_33]

Libs want to boss everyone around, amusing as they rarely are leaders in any capacity in life.

[keepthefaith]

I got a laugh in the thread at TBD about the near record warmth in Buffalo for the games, and someone wrote "Buy a hybrid."

 

Yep. That'll fix it.

 

You get a hybrid. And YOU get a hybrid. And EVERYONE gets a hybrid! And together we'll bring down the summer temperatures in Buffalo.

Yes and if we go to all electric cars we won't have hurricanes any longer.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..............Left think.

[B-Man]

Settled ?

 

 

Alarm as study reveals world’s tropical forests are huge carbon emission source
Guardian [uK], by Jonathan Watts

 

Original Article

 

The world’s tropical forests are so degraded they have become a source rather than a sink of carbon emissions, according to a new study that highlights the urgent need to protect and restore the Amazon and similar regions. Researchers found that forest areas in South America, Africa and Asia – which have until recently played a key role in absorbing greenhouse gases – are now releasing 425 teragrams of carbon annually, which is more than all the traffic in the United States.

 

(Snip)

 

“This shows that we can’t just sit back. The forest is not doing what we thought it was doing,”

 

 

 

 

[row_33]

Fox is the only network that at least gives the opposing side, a legit speaker for the liberal view, to say their dizzle.

Edited September 29, 2017 by row_33