A denier's misconception

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: A denier's misconception

    Its warming relative to a set of data, but its warmed before and cooled before.  Climate is not stationary and it fluctuates over generations, the latest concern always gets the attention just like global cooling a few decades ago.

    In the meantime let's do the right thing and have a diverse energy plan, support a cleaner environment and ensure that our energy use is cost effective.  

    ...the man who really counts in the world is the doer,...  TR 1891

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: A denier's misconception

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    In the meantime let's do the right thing and have a diverse energy plan, support a cleaner environment and ensure that our energy use is cost effective.  


    It really starts and ends there.

    But 'cost effective' also includes the significant future costs of not doing the 'right thing'.

    Just like with health care 20 years ago, although we didn't heed the warnings then, either.

     

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: A denier's misconception

    This astronomer's blog is not very scientific, is it? He is in a peeing contest; scientists are quite human, arent they? Notice how the insults fly.

    If Michael Mann was a 'respected'   scientist, he wouldnt spend most of his time campaigning for liberal Democrats, and insulting Republicans,  on the campaign trail....

    "We know the ramifications are costly at best and catastrophic at worst; the evidence for that is overwhelming"

    Scientists do better with studying the past and present; predictions for the future ramifications , not such an  "overwhelming" success rate.

    And the worst "overwhelming"  claim of global warming scientists is that "climate action" by the US (10% of the problem and shrinking) will have any impact at all.

    Where 'climate action" involves handing over billions to failed green energy which does little but make more crony billionaires like Al Gore, bankrupt the coal industry and result in skyrocketing energy costs ....

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A denier's misconception

    I think the liberals are grasping at straws.  Temperatures have been flat for a decade, coldest summer in the artic for a long time, and the private sector, not the Obama green energy plan, is producing an over abundance of clean energy.

    i think the complete repudiation of the liberal orthodoxy in this area must just drive them crazy.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: A denier's misconception

    This statement from the author is a bit weird:

    Science is not about proof. A proof is when you know something for absolute 100% certain, and that never happens. However, as I’ll show, in real life you don’t need 100% certainty to still be reasonably sure about something, sure enough to take action.

    OK, nothing is 100% certain. Yes, it is not 100% certain the sun will come up in the east tomorrow.  

    You can be reasonably sure that the globe is getting warmer. But does that mean we have accept the idiotic solutions that are proposed by politicians? 

    Why do we still argue about whether or not the earth is getting warmer?  Perhaps that is because we get distracted from how stupid the leftwing "solutions" are.  Easier to label someone a "denier" and ignore the lunacy of what is proposed to solve the problem.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: A denier's misconception

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In the meantime let's do the right thing and have a diverse energy plan, support a cleaner environment and ensure that our energy use is cost effective.  

     

     


    It really starts and ends there.

    But 'cost effective' also includes the significant future costs of not doing the 'right thing'.

    Just like with health care 20 years ago, although we didn't heed the warnings then, either.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So what is the "right thing"?  

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: A denier's misconception

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I think the liberals are grasping at straws.  Temperatures have been flat for a decade, coldest summer in the artic for a long time, and the private sector, not the Obama green energy plan, is producing an over abundance of clean energy.

    i think the complete repudiation of the liberal orthodoxy in this area must just drive them crazy.

     




     

     

    There's no way you actually believe the things you say here. You're a perfect caricature.

    [/QUOTE]

    What is wrong about what he states?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: A denier's misconception

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Its warming relative to a set of data, but its warmed before and cooled before.  Climate is not stationary and it fluctuates over generations, the latest concern always gets the attention just like global cooling a few decades ago.

     



    Meaning what? Are you making the same mistake as the subject of the OP?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What mistake?  The study of weather and climate are a combination of science and a lot of models with assumptions or in which case the modeler can assume criteria based on anecdotal evidence.  This same process gave us the global cooling concern of the 70's.  

    The only thing that is different now is that the computer can process all the assumptions faster; but garbage in will result in garbage out.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: A denier's misconception

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In the meantime let's do the right thing and have a diverse energy plan, support a cleaner environment and ensure that our energy use is cost effective.  

     



    I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing that it would be great if we found viable replacements for the dirtiest energy sources, like coal.

     

    The trouble is that when the question is "viable, but a little more expensive," people balk: It'll kill jobs! Rabble rabble rabble!

    Or more frequently "you're just saying that because you are part of the global conspiracy to make sure that climate scientists get government grants (because that's important to you, for some reason I can't explain)".

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    There are various grades of coal and a number of combustion processes for this fossil fuel.  Should we burn high sulfur coal in unregulated plants like in the early 20th century or how it's done in China today,... no.  But clean coal should be part of our energy plan.

    Arbitrary decisons that the EPA is potentially going to put into effect by administrative order next year could have a devasting effect on older energy plants from municipal power co-ops to large plants used on campus environments; state government complexes, hopspitals and colleges and universities.  We need to implement change gradually, steadily and in moderation.  Too fast will mean technology isn't ready and the costs and inefficiencies can be very negative on our economy.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: A denier's misconception

     

    The global warming zealot WDYWN says debate must be "stamped out" before we can  "meaningfully discuss any approach".

    Questioning the Gods of Science like Al Gore "shuts down discourse".

    So, shut up the dissenters, only then a "meaningful debate" can occur ..by progressives, for progressives...

    That darn First Amendment, always  ruining the big plans of liberals to fix everything for us.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     

Share