Ode to the Climate Science-Denier

[Cancel 2016.2]

1998 was an el Nino year, meaning it was abnormally hot for reasons other than GW. Using it as a benchmark is as invalid as midcan and other liberals attempts to use the bottom of the Great Depression as a starting point when discussing what party is better for the economy. It is bad statistics (regression to the mean) to use an abnormal year as a means of determining long term trends. You should drop that from your argument bag, because it makes you look dishonest (not saying you are) or misinformed.

There will always be a reason for the hottest year on record. Most of the time it WILL be due to an el Nino.

I am not the one that harps on 1998 being the hottest.... I am simply using the data provided by the link provided. As I mentioned many times before... Hansen stated clearly that there is no significant warming over the past 15 years.

If I were to use 1995, the first things out of the fear mongers mouths would be 'you liar... it was warmer in 1998'.

 

[wanderingbear]

No. It's you who has come to equate "liberalism" with anti-americanism only.

I am against the corporate agenda


You are FOR the corporate agenda because it's being used to destroy the american people, a goal your brainwashed mind beleives to be noble.

God!!! your an idiot. Go back to school.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

God!!! your an idiot. Go back to school.

God!! quit getting your ass kicked and then responding with nonsense. JEEZ>

 

[Onceler]

I kind of wish the whole climate debate would just fade away. To me, it's an absolutely moot point.

How much is the taxpayer going to end up paying for the BP spill? How much money will we spend with the Middle East this year? How much would our economy benefit from having the lion's share of our energy come from domestic renewables?

For national security & economic reasons, transitioning away from fossil fuels should be one of our top priorities. And I really get tired of hearing that "it can't be done" or "it can't be done in our lifetimes," from the same people who live in a country that put a man on the moon and invented the GPS (just got one - one of the best things ever)....

 

[Cypress]

For the record, these are the correct, and incorrect characterizations of the state modern climate science:


Incorrect

-Climate scientists are completely befuddled and have absolutely no idea whether human are contributing to zero percent or to 99 percent of the warming trend.

-Climate gate was a nefarious, world-wide conspiracy of lying, liberal climate scientists to defraud the public and to fool the best and most reputable science organizations on the planet.


Correct

-The overwhelming weight of evidence, as provided by the best climate researchers on the planet, indicates that there is a very high probability that most of the warming trend of the last 40 years is due to human activities. We don’t know exactly if that means 60% or 95%, but the warming trend cannot plausibly be accounted for by mostly natural variation.

-Science virtually never “proves” anything with one-thousand percent, bullet-proof certainty, and beyond all possible shadow of a doubt. That’s not what science does.

-Climate gate was a laughable non-issue; a hilarious attempt by fringe rightwingers to concoct a phony faux-controversy about an imaginary fantastical global conspiracy of nefarious liberal climate scientists.

-Based on observational data, we can conclude with 99% certainty that anyone who blathers endlessly about the faux “Climate gate” plot , voted for Bush twice, voted for Sarah Palin, and was happily, easily, and willfully duped into supporting the Iraq Fiasco.

 

[wanderingbear]

I kind of wish the whole climate debate would just fade away. To me, it's an absolutely moot point.

How much is the taxpayer going to end up paying for the BP spill? How much money will we spend with the Middle East this year? How much would our economy benefit from having the lion's share of our energy come from domestic renewables?

For national security & economic reasons, transitioning away from fossil fuels should be one of our top priorities. And I really get tired of hearing that "it can't be done" or "it can't be done in our lifetimes," from the same people who live in a country that put a man on the moon and invented the GPS (just got one - one of the best things ever)....

Your right it is a moot point. We've already past the point of no return.The damage has already been done and now we all have to live with it.

 

[Timshel]

There will always be a reason for the hottest year on record. Most of the time it WILL be due to an el Nino.

I am not the one that harps on 1998 being the hottest.... I am simply using the data provided by the link provided. As I mentioned many times before... Hansen stated clearly that there is no significant warming over the past 15 years.

If I were to use 1995, the first things out of the fear mongers mouths would be 'you liar... it was warmer in 1998'.

1995 would be a better benchmark for judging recent warming trends. Using an abnormally hot year to judge longer term trends is bad statistical analysis. It would be like using the hr numbers from the height of the steroid era and then saying hitters are showing a long term slide in hr. That's why some want an asterisk.

1998 could be compared against other el Nino years to show a long term trend. Since hottest year ever, would include comparison against those years, it does imply the possibility of a warming trend. From what I am hearing, we may get past 1998 this year.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Your right it is a moot point. We've already past the point of no return.The damage has already been done and now we all have to live with it.

Quit crying, your moistening your stash.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I kind of wish the whole climate debate would just fade away. To me, it's an absolutely moot point.

How much is the taxpayer going to end up paying for the BP spill? How much money will we spend with the Middle East this year? How much would our economy benefit from having the lion's share of our energy come from domestic renewables?

For national security & economic reasons, transitioning away from fossil fuels should be one of our top priorities. And I really get tired of hearing that "it can't be done" or "it can't be done in our lifetimes," from the same people who live in a country that put a man on the moon and invented the GPS (just got one - one of the best things ever)....

100% agree.

Wasting countless amounts of time, intellectual capacity and money trying to blame man for the some vague percentage of warming is ridiculous. Especially when the data doesn't support such a claim.

Bottom line...

1) We convert coal electric facilities to nat gas facilities

2) We build the infrastructure to support the use of nat gas in autos. Which by the way, work quite well/are cheaper than gasoline/and loses nothing in horsepower.

3) We drill our own nat gas resources and at a minimum any untapped oil resources on land.

4) We invest more heavily in algae based biofuel. The Air Force already uses it, so we know it works. It also has ZERO waste as the remaining product is a high carb food source for livestock (and it is natural). It also uses about 1% of the water needed for other biofuels and does not require the use of edible crops. It can also be put on almost any piece of land (ie... land that cannot be farmed)

5) we continue investing in other alt energy sources... solar, wind etc... I don't care if we are only able to transition 5% of energy production to these in the next couple decades. 5% is 5%. Personally, I think we can do better than that. But we have to get behind the effort.

6) Invest in other green/clean tech that will help reduce the waste products that overflow our landfills.

 

[Onceler]

100% agree.

Wasting countless amounts of time, intellectual capacity and money trying to blame man for the some vague percentage of warming is ridiculous. Especially when the data doesn't support such a claim.

Bottom line...

1) We convert coal electric facilities to nat gas facilities

2) We build the infrastructure to support the use of nat gas in autos. Which by the way, work quite well/are cheaper than gasoline/and loses nothing in horsepower.

3) We drill our own nat gas resources and at a minimum any untapped oil resources on land.

4) We invest more heavily in algae based biofuel. The Air Force already uses it, so we know it works. It also has ZERO waste as the remaining product is a high carb food source for livestock (and it is natural). It also uses about 1% of the water needed for other biofuels and does not require the use of edible crops. It can also be put on almost any piece of land (ie... land that cannot be farmed)

5) we continue investing in other alt energy sources... solar, wind etc... I don't care if we are only able to transition 5% of energy production to these in the next couple decades. 5% is 5%. Personally, I think we can do better than that. But we have to get behind the effort.

6) Invest in other green/clean tech that will help reduce the waste products that overflow our landfills.

I agree that we're already doing quite a bit. I think I just hate hearing things like "we can never get off oil."

Technology advancement is exponential, and generally always have been. People have no idea what we're going to be able to work with in 5-10 years in terms of harnessing & converting various sources of energy on a mass scale; but you have to at least dream it first, and allow for the possibility.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

1995 would be a better benchmark for judging recent warming trends. Using an abnormally hot year to judge longer term trends is bad statistical analysis. It would be like using the hr numbers from the height of the steroid era and then saying hitters are showing a long term slide in hr. That's why some want an asterisk.

1998 could be compared against other el Nino years to show a long term trend. Since hottest year ever, would include comparison against those years, it does imply the possibility of a warming trend. From what I am hearing, we may get past 1998 this year.

yes... NASA is guessing that 2010 will be warmer...

again... as I stated, I use 1998 because if I use 1995, the fear mongers would run around calling me a liar and point to 1998 as evidence that it got warmer. The other reason is that I have been using 1998 since 2008 when it covered the past decade (at that point). I understand your point and agree, I am simply trying to head off the fear mongers obvious response to 1995. That is why I mention both.

Bottom line... As I stated.... Jones stated clearly that there has been no significant level of warming in the past 15 years.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

100% agree.

Wasting countless amounts of time, intellectual capacity and money trying to blame man for the some vague percentage of warming is ridiculous. Especially when the data doesn't support such a claim.

Bottom line...

1) We convert coal electric facilities to nat gas facilities

2) We build the infrastructure to support the use of nat gas in autos. Which by the way, work quite well/are cheaper than gasoline/and loses nothing in horsepower.

3) We drill our own nat gas resources and at a minimum any untapped oil resources on land.

4) We invest more heavily in algae based biofuel. The Air Force already uses it, so we know it works. It also has ZERO waste as the remaining product is a high carb food source for livestock (and it is natural). It also uses about 1% of the water needed for other biofuels and does not require the use of edible crops. It can also be put on almost any piece of land (ie... land that cannot be farmed)

5) we continue investing in other alt energy sources... solar, wind etc... I don't care if we are only able to transition 5% of energy production to these in the next couple decades. 5% is 5%. Personally, I think we can do better than that. But we have to get behind the effort.

6) Invest in other green/clean tech that will help reduce the waste products that overflow our landfills.

But how then do we keep terrorists flush with cash to justify our defense of israel?

 

[Timshel]

I agree that we're already doing quite a bit. I think I just hate hearing things like "we can never get off oil."

Technology advancement is exponential, and generally always have been. People have no idea what we're going to be able to work with in 5-10 years in terms of harnessing & converting various sources of energy on a mass scale; but you have to at least dream it first, and allow for the possibility.

I definitely think we can get off oil. I fear too much government involvement will lead to a bad choice and create a new special interest group that will then block advancement of better choices. I would rather the government just tax oil more than have them too greatly involved in choosing the alternative.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I definitely think we can get off oil. I fear too much government involvement will lead to a bad choice and create a new special interest group that will then block advancement of better choices. I would rather the government just tax oil more than have them too greatly involved in choosing the alternative.

bad idea. When the government is making revenue on something, they will make sure it never goes away.

maybe internalizing the cost of war abroad into the product would be a good idea.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I agree that we're already doing quite a bit. I think I just hate hearing things like "we can never get off oil."

Technology advancement is exponential, and generally always have been. People have no idea what we're going to be able to work with in 5-10 years in terms of harnessing & converting various sources of energy on a mass scale; but you have to at least dream it first, and allow for the possibility.

agreed... most of that list was a 'we need to ramp these up'.

We are NEVER going to go from 25 million brls a day to 10 million within a year or even two. We have to keep chipping away at the consumption.

I think the easiest way (based on tech) is to expand that nat gas vehicles and the only way to do that is to build out the infrastructure for refueling stations.

Provide a tax credit to the companies that own the gas stations... based on putting nat gas pumps in place at each station. Bonus for those that do it within the next three years.

Then go to our very own government owned auto manufacturers and state... get it done. They already have nat gas vehicles. They just need to make sure they are tooled up to produce the vehicles in mass in three years.

 

[Damocles]

agreed... most of that list was a 'we need to ramp these up'.

We are NEVER going to go from 25 million brls a day to 10 million within a year or even two. We have to keep chipping away at the consumption.

I think the easiest way (based on tech) is to expand that nat gas vehicles and the only way to do that is to build out the infrastructure for refueling stations.

Provide a tax credit to the companies that own the gas stations... based on putting nat gas pumps in place at each station. Bonus for those that do it within the next three years.

Then go to our very own government owned auto manufacturers and state... get it done. They already have nat gas vehicles. They just need to make sure they are tooled up to produce the vehicles in mass in three years.

Converting a regular fuel vehicle into a Nat Gas vehicle costs about $2000 right now. We'd need to ramp up the conversions as well. That would get cheaper as people got better at it. The vehicle, after conversion, usually can run either. I almost bought a truck once that had both a nat gas and a regular gasoline tank that you could switch between.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

But how then do we keep terrorists flush with cash to justify our defense of israel?

you are asking the wrong person. Because I am all for shutting down our foreign bases and putting the bases instead all along our southern border.

The way I see it... if you have two guys so intent on fighting each other that they are swinging away even though you are standing between them. You can only stand between them for so long. Sooner or later, you have to move and let them go at it. Otherwise you are the only one getting beaten.

 

[Timshel]

bad idea. When the government is making revenue on something, they will make sure it never goes away.

That's a valid point. But if taxes are very high on oil the market will move away from it. The only way the government can maintain the revenue is by lowering it to a lower, optimum tax. This is kind of the Laffer Curve thing or Montesquieu's discussion of optimum tax levels. Taxing too high as a means of raising government revenue is self defeating.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Converting a regular fuel vehicle into a Nat Gas vehicle costs about $2000 right now. We'd need to ramp up the conversions as well. That would get cheaper as people got better at it. The vehicle, after conversion, usually can run either. I almost bought a truck once that had both a nat gas and a regular gasoline tank that you could switch between.

another great short term move that would aid in the reduction of oil consumption. 71% of our petroleum use is due to transportation. We have the nat gas capacity in the US for a couple centuries of use.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pecss_diagram.html

 

[Sammy Jankis]

That's a valid point. But if taxes are very high on oil the market will move away from it. The only way the government can maintain the revenue is by lowering it to a lower, optimum tax. This is kind of the Laffer Curve thing or Montesquieu's discussion of optimum tax levels. Taxing too high as a means of raising government revenue is self defeating.

Lower optimum tax is not the only way to maintain revenue; they could also keep other options under wraps with their undue influence. Or they could just keep hiring the greens to villainize anything reasonable.

Just get off your stupid elitist planner fascist notions of stupidity.