Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-05-2014, 07:59 AM
 
1,824 posts, read 1,368,317 times
Reputation: 1569

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
So what? It's just a forum for anonymous nobodies to chat online. Do you really think your personal opinion and the opinions of other anonymous climate change deniers on forums is really important or relevant to climate change? Do you think that because you believe you've debunked something it actually makes it so?

If that's what you think you need to do a reality check. The deniers are all just clueless throw-away hecklers throwing garbage from the peanut gallery.

LOL.

.
If that is true, the exact same thing is true of the alarmists. It works both ways.

 
Old 10-05-2014, 08:04 AM
 
1,824 posts, read 1,368,317 times
Reputation: 1569
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
You really need a name change, as I see very little reason in anything you post.
Ahhh and now you've devolved into simply hurling insults. The last refuge of someone who has nothing left to offer. I thought that was Seabass's style, not yours.

Last edited by voiceofreazon; 10-05-2014 at 09:18 AM..
 
Old 10-05-2014, 08:59 AM
 
27,307 posts, read 16,180,034 times
Reputation: 12100
What I got from the video is the deniers are one voice and the others a screaming bunch of morons trying to talk over each other screaming about their studies.
 
Old 10-05-2014, 09:11 AM
 
Location: DC
6,848 posts, read 7,967,033 times
Reputation: 3572
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge View Post
Politicians aren't going to support policies that the public do not want, especially when it will dramatically hit the tax payer where it hurts.


In the end. No one will do jack ****, because know one can pay for it what is being asked.

45 trillion (best case scenario)? Or 545 trillion (worst case scenario)? And that's just to reduce our co2 emission to 1990 levels by 2050. NOT becoming carbon neutral by any means.... Just to go down to 1990 levels
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/ad...93-2008.08.pdf


and do you know what "wedges" are?

Assumed 1.5%/yr CO2 growth
Actual = 3%+

Prometheus » Blog Archive » Why Costly Carbon is a House of Cards
Are you Rip van Winkle? Do you not realize we have been implementing climate change mitigation policies for a decade? Get out, travel, see the country. There are places where wind turbines extend to the horizon. PV is growing at exponential rates. Building owners are falling all over themselves to get LEED certification. Car economy standards have been ratcheted up and are already reducing oil consumption.
 
Old 10-05-2014, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Where you aren't
1,245 posts, read 921,467 times
Reputation: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
No, it's easy.... We post the science then get a big laugh when morons deny it....Too bad you have no science on your side, as you are missing out on a lot of fun. Deniers really are the laughing stock of this forum.
You mean THEORIES ( conspiracy theories that is ), not science! Global warming, and climate change does not have 100% science backing it up. I lost count of how many times you embarrassed yourself on this forum. I won't stoop as low as you did, by calling people who are sceptics "morons."
 
Old 10-05-2014, 10:31 AM
 
29,449 posts, read 19,542,454 times
Reputation: 4509
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
Are you Rip van Winkle? Do you not realize we have been implementing climate change mitigation policies for a decade? Get out, travel, see the country. There are places where wind turbines extend to the horizon. PV is growing at exponential rates. Building owners are falling all over themselves to get LEED certification. Car economy standards have been ratcheted up and are already reducing oil consumption.
Yeah I'm not asleep and know that these mitigation policies only survive through government subsidies, and they in the words of James Hansen" are just greenwashing. A joke, a show, a sham.... Trivial in the grand scheme of things



And to do what alarmists want is not feasible anyways...

Quote:
That is also the view of energy chemist Nate Lewis of the California Institute of Technology. "It's not true that all the technologies are available and we just need the political will to deploy them," he says. "My concern, and that of most scientists working on energy, is that we are not anywhere close to where we need to be. We are too focused on cutting emissions 20 percent by 2020—but you can always shave 20 percent off" through, say, efficiency and conservation. By focusing on easy, near-term cuts, we may miss the boat on what's needed by 2050, when CO2 emissions will have to be 80 percent below today's to keep atmospheric levels no higher than 450 parts per million. (We're now at 386 ppm, compared with 280 before the Industrial Revolution.) That's 80 percent less emissions from much greater use of energy."

Lewis's numbers show the enormous challenge we face. The world used 14 trillion watts (14 terawatts) of power in 2006. Assuming minimal population growth (to 9 billion people), slow economic growth (1.6 percent a year, practically recession level) and—this is key—unprecedented energy efficiency (improvements of 500 percent relative to current U.S. levels, worldwide), it will use 28 terawatts in 2050. (In a business-as-usual scenario, we would need 45 terawatts.) Simple physics shows that in order to keep CO2 to 450 ppm, 26.5 of those terawatts must be zero-carbon. That's a lot of solar, wind, hydro, biofuels and nuclear, especially since renewables kicked in a measly 0.2 terawatts in 2006 and nuclear provided 0.9 terawatts.Are you a fan of nuclear? To get 10 terawatts, less than half of what we'll need in 2050, Lewis calculates, we'd have to build 10,000 reactors, or one every other day starting now. Do you like wind? If you use every single breeze that blows on land, you'll get 10 or 15 terawatts. Since it's impossible to capture all the wind, a more realistic number is 3 terawatts, or 1 million state-of-the art turbines, and even that requires storing the energy—something we don't know how to do—for when the wind doesn't blow. Solar? To get 10 terawatts by 2050, Lewis calculates, we'd need to cover 1 million roofs with panels every day from now until then. "It would take an army
and....

http://nsl.caltech.edu/_media/energy:energy_notes.pdf
 
Old 10-06-2014, 07:09 AM
 
8,058 posts, read 3,929,455 times
Reputation: 5343
Here is an interesting read on all the political reasons to keep the 2C Target:

Scientists weigh in on two degrees target for curbing global warming

Note the uncharacteristic display of honesty from IPCC co-chair Thomas Stocker (bold & underline mine):

IPCC co-chair Thomas Stocker agrees. The target may be imperfect, he says, but:
"I find it irresponsible to propose to abandon the 2°C target for something which is not yet well defined and which is not fully understood by the scientists."

Last edited by Ultor; 10-06-2014 at 07:19 AM..
 
Old 10-06-2014, 04:11 PM
 
1,143 posts, read 1,077,846 times
Reputation: 722
Default Earth Is Heating Faster Than We Realized Making 2C Limit For Global Warming More Urgent---Unbelievable Liars

These Global warming alarmists are just pathetic liars and con artists. Its just incredible how low these people will go to brainwash the public. BTW...I woke up this morning to a whopping 32 degrees heat wave.

Earth Is Heating Faster Than We Realized, Making 2°C Limit For Global Warming More Urgent | ThinkProgress
 
Old 10-06-2014, 04:16 PM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,082 posts, read 14,291,533 times
Reputation: 9789
Who are you trying to convince with your ubiquitous GW threads?
The "warmers" or yourself?
 
Old 10-06-2014, 04:19 PM
 
4,983 posts, read 3,282,979 times
Reputation: 2739
We believe in science!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:12 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top