Climategate Lies

[purpleoscar]

Interesting that you didn't need an absolute consensus on WMDs, very telling

Nobody is saying that's not an intelligence error and it costs less than worldwide cap and trade and Iraq is a free country now. You seem to want to keep reducing the military down to fund other social programs you like. I would agree with that if there were no dictatorships, but alas that isn't the case.

But we're not just talking about plants.

Then make your claims. Don't say animals. Say which animals and how and show the study. I know that some people talk about ocean acidification but that is still being hotly debated right now. Al Gore's acid oceans is bullshit along with his Cuba disappearing off the map.

I have, and it's already saved me money.

How? Tokenism won't work. Remember CO2 has to be greatly decreased if you believe this is an emergency.

You should become one of those clowns that make animal balloons at the circus, because you're awesome at twisting things.

I don't have to twist anything. I'm not making outlandish alarmist claims about CO2. BTW there are ongoing studies of CO2 being made now that are to improve computer models. That's just another reason why we should get the science right. Any responses based on old inaccurate models should not happen.

So the answer is no. So this whole "green jobs where people get paid to do nothing" is just another conservative alinsky type talking point?

You really want high unemployment don't you? Why can't we just continue to finance new technologies so when they fail (some of them will) we don't have a world government and trillions of dollars invested? Economic resources aren't unlimited. Once a promising technology is developed plenty of capital will chase it. Solar and wind are deadends. The most notable green technology that has hope in 30 years is nuclear fusion. Even then we would still use some fossil fuels but probably a lot less. In the meantime people need jobs and the more your president ignores that the more likely he'll have an opposing congress forcing him to realise it.

 

[BVS]

You seem to want to keep reducing the military down to fund other social programs you like.

No, I'm just saying be consistent with your conservative ideals otherwise you're a hypocrite

Climate change is a "social program"?

Ridiculous

Then make your claims. Don't say animals. Say which animals and how and show the study.

You can't be serious. What?!

How? Tokenism won't work. Remember CO2 has to be greatly decreased if you believe this is an emergency.

Well I know it has to be greatly decreased... But all I know is that my utility bill is less than half of all my neighbors

Solar and wind are deadends.

Only a fool would say this, I don't know how you can when you've actually posted sources saying the opposite.

A big portion of West Texas is being ran on wind right now with very little supplemental energy and no subsidized money. The technology will only get better, smaller, and cheaper. It's not a deadend for the places that have the ability to harness wind or sun. You have to get out of this mindset that we all need the same exact energy source.

 

[Benji2112]

"Climate change is a "social program"?

The 2 men who wrote it, Maurice Strong and Robert Muller says it is a social program .

CSD's

 

[Benji2112]

No, I'm just saying be consistent with your conservative ideals otherwise you're a hypocrite

Climate change is a "social program"?

Ridiculous



You can't be serious. What?!




Well I know it has to be greatly decreased... But all I know is that my utility bill is less than half of all my neighbors





Only a fool would say this, I don't know how you can when you've actually posted sources saying the opposite.

A big portion of West Texas is being ran on wind right now with very little supplemental energy and no subsidized money. The technology will only get better, smaller, and cheaper. It's not a deadend for the places that have the ability to harness wind or sun. You have to get out of this mindset that we all need the same exact energy source.

Source? They have smart grids in Bum F Texas? No Subsidized money ?

prove that .

 

[Benji2112]

No, I'm just saying be consistent with your conservative ideals otherwise you're a hypocrite

Climate change is a "social program"?

Ridiculous



You can't be serious. What?!




Well I know it has to be greatly decreased... But all I know is that my utility bill is less than half of all my neighbors





Only a fool would say this, I don't know how you can when you've actually posted sources saying the opposite.

A big portion of West Texas is being ran on wind right now with very little supplemental energy and no subsidized money. The technology will only get better, smaller, and cheaper. It's not a deadend for the places that have the ability to harness wind or sun. You have to get out of this mindset that we all need the same exact energy source.

so on those beautiful lands, maybe outside Maurices house, there are going to be 3 million arces of Solar Panels and windmills? Great land preservation.

Hell man, even the Kennedy's didnt want windmills outside their windows.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I don't get it.

The masseuse who says that Al Gore sexually attacked/assaulted her in 2006 said he was like a "giggling sex crazed poodle". Or crazed sex poodle-I've seen it both ways.

 

[Benji2112]

The masseuse who says that Al Gore sexually attacked/assaulted her in 2006 said he was like a "giggling sex crazed poodle". Or crazed sex poodle-I've seen it both ways.

He's lucky that only one has come out so far.... Nashville, everyone knows everything about everybody

 

[Benji2112]

Sorry on the Texas wind farms . Subsidized .


By CHINA !!!!!!!!

Chinese-Made Turbines to Fill U.S. Wind Farm - WSJ.com

"The federal government is trying to breathe new life into the industry and last month handed out more than $500 million in grants to a dozen wind and solar-energy projects.
Cappy McGarr, managing partner of U.S. Renewable Energy Group, a private-equity firm that is lead partner on the 600-megawatt development, said the partnership would seek tax credits and support from the federal stimulus package, which should amount to millions of dollars. Mr. McGarr said the project should create 2,800 jobs -- of which 15% would be in the U.S. The rest would flow to China, where Shenyang employs 800 people."

Yup, lets get those chinese back to work . Your Stimulus dollars at work.

 

[BVS]

I wouldn't want simpleton science to win:

High Carbon Dioxide Boosts Plant Respiration, Potentially Affecting Climate And Crops

 

[BVS]

Sorry on the Texas wind farms . Subsidized .


By CHINA !!!!!!!!

Chinese-Made Turbines to Fill U.S. Wind Farm - WSJ.com

That article was in 2009.

The first West Texas city to be fully powered by wind was in 2007. Yes the largest is receiving money from China, but this isn't a tax credit or subsidy. China looks to profit off this, I keep hearing how green energy only works because of tax breaks and can't be profitable, well you just kinda helped me out, thanks.

 

[Benji2112]

That article was in 2009.

The first West Texas city to be fully powered by wind was in 2007. Yes the largest is receiving money from China, but this isn't a tax credit or subsidy. China looks to profit off this, I keep hearing how green energy only works because of tax breaks and can't be profitable, well you just kinda helped me out, thanks.

Umm I didnt include the DOE link. I can if you want.

I am astounded that this project is also funded by stimulus, Tax breaks, and the majority of the jobs go to China.

That is TEXTBOOK with what is wrong with this country and this Administration. . This is why Glenn Beck blows gaskets. Rightfully so.


This is also TEXTBOOK for what's in UN Agenda 21 . It's no conspiracy, it is the book.


So how do you get not subsidized out of something that is clearly subsidized ?

2009 was a year ago, which means this fiscal year.

 

[BVS]

That is TEXTBOOK with what is wrong with this country and this Administration.

I'm not aware this is the first administration that outsourcing has occured

You open my eyes.

So how do you get not subsidized out of something that is clearly subsidized ?

2009 was a year ago, which means this fiscal year.

Did you not read the first part of my post? Or any of it for that matter?

 

[Benji2112]

I'm not aware this is the first administration that outsourcing has occured

You open my eyes.




Did you not read the first part of my post? Or any of it for that matter?

"9% unemployment. I know that's hard, but hey, lets look at the bright side, at least it isn't 60% ! "

wasn't the Green economy to create "American Jobs" ?

Want to see how this movie ends? Look at Spain, and the same experiement of total failure.

I also thought it was change ? What a man he is !

 

[BVS]

It sucks, I agree.

But don't act like this is unique to Obama, or you'll just make yourself look silly.

But it does show us that green energy can be profitable and will be the future.

 

[purpleoscar]

But it does show us that green energy can be profitable and will be the future.

Until then we use cheap energy. No excuse for a cap and trade world government.

 

[A_Wanderer]

New Zealand could pay all the money in the world and zilch will be done by CO2. BTW planet earth has had 20 times the CO2 in the past and we are nowhere near it and won't be near it for hundreds of years. Conservatives simply inherited this mess and like all taxes and regulations it's hard politically to remove them once they are in.

20 times the CO2 during a hothouse earth period; have you ever heard of anoxic marine basins?

 

[BVS]

Until then we use cheap energy. No excuse for a cap and trade world government.

Which for West Texas and Nevada is wind, and Austrailia is solar.

My house it's passive heating, cooling systems and water collection with a combination of solar.

Even if you don't believe in climate change you know that we'll have to move, that's just common sense. Are you going to wait until there's shortage until you invest in new technologies? That's just poor planning.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The conspiracy widens.

YouTube - Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Climate Change and National Security

 

[purpleoscar]

20 times the CO2 during a hothouse earth period; have you ever heard of anoxic marine basins?

The point is that we are nowhere near that level yet we are often told of 6 degrees increase in warmth in the next 100 years.

 

[purpleoscar]

The conspiracy widens.

YouTube - Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Climate Change and National Security

This alarmist crap is great. Keep the claims going regarding 1 metre sea level rises and catastrophic water and oil wars and ice completely disappearing. Ocean acidification killing the oceans. The problem is the years when these events are supposed to happen keep being pushed back. It's nice to try and tie current floods to AGW. This is embarrassing. It's just more of the same "somethings happening, you could argue, but somethings happening." "We've got to act now!" Un huh. $$$$$$

CO2 Science

Maybe the animals aren't so bad off?

 

[purpleoscar]

My house it's passive heating, cooling systems and water collection with a combination of solar.

That's great you can afford solar but it can't be mass produced in a cost effective way. Not everyone can afford it or else everyone would have solar by now. We need energy sources that can pay for the equipment. The people who produce solar admit the cost savings aren't there after you factor in the capital cost.

 

[BVS]

That's great you can afford solar but it can't be mass produced in a cost effective way. Not everyone can afford it or else everyone would have solar by now. We need energy sources that can pay for the equipment. The people who produce solar admit the cost savings aren't there after you factor in the capital cost.

It paid for itself within 4 years, I calculated 5...

When retrofitted, you're probably right, it would take much longer, but if integrated with the right design it can do so much quicker.

 

[purpleoscar]

It paid for itself within 4 years, I calculated 5...

When retrofitted, you're probably right, it would take much longer, but if integrated with the right design it can do so much quicker.

Oh it's a new house. Well as long as it doesn't increase the cost of new houses much that's great. Most people would have to retrofit and of course they would have to not live in Canada.

 

[BVS]

Oh it's a new house. Well as long as it doesn't increase the cost of new houses much that's great.

The cost was more initially but had to be able to pay itself off within at least a decade or it wasn't worth it. It did

 

[purpleoscar]

The cost was more initially but had to be able to pay itself off within at least a decade or it wasn't worth it. It did

As long as new technology is affordable for some people that's alright with me. What would be cool is to develop enough nuclear power plants to run electric vehicles.

 

[A_Wanderer]

This alarmist crap is great. Keep the claims going regarding 1 metre sea level rises and catastrophic water and oil wars and ice completely disappearing. Ocean acidification killing the oceans. The problem is the years when these events are supposed to happen keep being pushed back. It's nice to try and tie current floods to AGW. This is embarrassing. It's just more of the same "somethings happening, you could argue, but somethings happening." "We've got to act now!" Un huh. $$$$$?

The DoD needs to deal with the reality of anthropogenic climate change. No amount of anti-scientific obscurantism (which the denialist movement is engaged in) will change that.

As far as your link goes I suggest you be a little bit more critical about your sources

On it's website Sherwood B. Idso writes that "our typical response is that we never discuss our funding. Why? Because we believe that ideas about the way the world of nature operates should stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the source of support for the person or organization that produces them ... It is self-evident, for example, that one need not know from whence a person's or organization's funding comes in order to evaluate the reasonableness of what they say, if - and this is a very important qualification - one carefully studies the writings of people on both sides of the issue."[3]
The Center states on its website that it "accepts corporate, foundation and individual donations" and that "all donations are kept confidential".[4]
Sherwood Idso confirmed that Exxon "made some donations to us a few times in the past" but attributed this to the fact that "they probably liked what we typically had to say about the issue. But what we had to say then, and what we have to say now, came not, and comes not, from them or any other organization or person."[3]
ExxonMobil's 2001 list of groups it funded listed a $10,000 contribution to the CSCDGC in 2001. Center for Science in the Public Interest, "Center for the study of carbon dioxide and global change", Integrity in Science, undated, accessed March 2004. [5]
StopExxon.org reports CSCDGC has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005 comprising: [6]
1998: $10,000
2000: $15,000
2003: $40,000
2005: $25,000

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change - SourceWatch

I know that you don't believe in peer reviewed journals because they discriminate against cranks (and there was that time you linked to several articles which didn't backup your assertions). But you will probably need to start using them if you want people to take you seriously.

 

[A_Wanderer]

As long as new technology is affordable for some people that's alright with me. What would be cool is to develop enough nuclear power plants to run electric vehicles.

That's not going to happen whilst the coal and oil lobbies are able to disrupt any positive actions.

Would you support a massive rollout of nuclear power at cost to the taxpayer to cut CO2 emissions?

 

[purpleoscar]

That's not going to happen whilst the coal and oil lobbies are able to disrupt any positive actions.

Would you support a massive rollout of nuclear power at cost to the taxpayer to cut CO2 emissions?

It depends on what can be affordable. I'm sure we can gradually increase nuclear but the U.S. has a debt crisis so as long as stimulus is rolled out it's probably not going to happen. There needs to be a balanced budget but at least creating a proven green source without cap and trade is not a bad idea. Of course these new plants would have to be able to reprocess spent fuel like in France and Japan.

 

[A_Wanderer]

That's a non-answer.

I suspect that you would continue with coal plants as long as they generate cheaper electricity.

 

[purpleoscar]

I know that you don't believe in peer reviewed journals because they discriminate against cranks (and there was that time you linked to several articles which didn't backup your assertions). But you will probably need to start using them if you want people to take you seriously.

Well "peer-reviewed" doesn't mean the same thing after the 2007 IPCC debacle and climategate. The fact that government funding of studies is considered impartial on your part and that climate models have failed the question is does anybody take the IPCC seriously? Do you really believe that climatologists have the same currency as they did pre-climategate? The appeal to authority argument can't work anymore. Your video asks us to take your word for it without evidence because something might happen. If we used this logic for every special interest group asking for money it would be unaffordable.

Pushing people out of your favorite "peer reviewed" journals is more like ostracism than science.

Global warming: Interview with John Christy--Models, sensitivity, the PNAS paper and more

Examiner: Stephen Schneider recently co-authored a paper published in PNAS exploring the level of expertise found in scientists who support the consensus position on climate change compared to those who do not agree with the consensus. What is your reaction to this paper?

J.C. I was one of only three scientists who made both the "good guy" and the "bad guy" lists. Quite an honor I suppose. However, I think the study was pathetic. It basically says, "Those of us who agree with each other like to cite the work of our friends and not the other guys." Duh. (One of my fellow scientists calls this "tribalism" - an appropriately primitive description.) I think the more sinister motive was evident in that the paper chided the media, such at the SF Chronicle, to stop investigative-reporting and just "trust us" (the guys on the "good guys" list) when it comes to climate change. It really was an attempt to make a blacklist. In that sense, I guess I ended up being gray, which fits my hair color now.