Obama mocks foes who brand climate change a 'liberal plot'

Jun 26, 2014
US President Barack Obama speaks during the League of Conservation Voters Capitol Dinner at the Ronald Regan Building and International Trade Center on June 25, 2014 in Washington, DC

US President Barack Obama mocked Republicans who reject global warming as a "liberal plot," as he pumped up a crowd of environmental activists in Washington.

"Folks will tell you is a hoax or a fad or a plot," Obama said at a League of Conservation Voters dinner.

"It's a liberal plot," Obama said, sarcastically.

"Many who say that actually know better and they're just embarrassed, they duck the question.

"'They say, hey, I'm not a scientist,' which really translates into, 'I accept that manmade climate change is real, but if I say so out loud, I will be run out of town by a bunch of fringe elements that thinks is a liberal plot.'"

Obama compared climate change deniers to patients who ignore the science that shows they have a disease.

"I'm not a doctor either—but if a bunch of doctors tell me that tobacco can cause lung cancer, then I'll say, okay.

"I mean, it's not that hard," Obama said.

The US president is turning increasingly sardonic about lawmakers, not exclusively Republicans, who thwarted White House efforts during his first term to introduce a cap-and-trade system to regulate .

Some of Obama's foes either doubt the science behind climate change or fear that doing something about it will involve draconian measures that will hike energy prices or harm the still fragile US economy.

Obama recently unveiled a plan to use his executive powers to cut carbon emissions from US power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.

The plan would let US states choose their own approaches as long as each enforces restrictions on carbon emissions.

Explore further: Obama: Power plant rule will shrink power prices

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Obama says climate change deniers ignoring science

Jun 14, 2014

(AP)—President Barack Obama said denying climate change is like arguing that the moon is made of cheese, as he issued a call for action on global warming to Saturday's graduates of the University of California, ...

Carbon plan still leaves US short of UN pledge

Jun 05, 2014

President Barack Obama's plan to cut the carbon emissions of US power plants by up to 30 percent will leave America far short of its current pledges at UN climate talks, a study said Wednesday.

Recommended for you

NASA image: Signs of deforestation in Brazil

2 hours ago

Multiple fires are visible in in this image of the Para and Mato Grosso states of Brazil. Many of these were most likely intentionally set in order to deforest the land. Deforestation is the removal of a ...

Sunblock poses potential hazard to sea life

2 hours ago

The sweet and salty aroma of sunscreen and seawater signals a relaxing trip to the shore. But scientists are now reporting that the idyllic beach vacation comes with an environmental hitch. When certain sunblock ...

Is falling recycling rate due to 'green fatigue'?

3 hours ago

It's been suggested that a recent fall in recycling rates is due to green fatigue, caused by the confusing number of recycling bins presented to householders for different materials. Recycling rates woul ...

Study to inform Maryland decision on "fracking"

6 hours ago

The Maryland Department of Environment and Department of Health and Mental Hygiene released on August 18, 2014, a report by the University of Maryland School of Public Health, which assesses the potential ...

User comments : 175

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Bartley41
1.7 / 5 (23) Jun 27, 2014
I'm not a scientist either but I know BS when I smell it. If they were so confident of their prognostications why did global warming have to be rebranded as "climate change". Why are they using current weather to promote their view of global warming. We were told for years that current weather and global warming were not to be confused or intermingled.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (21) Jun 27, 2014
This is REALLY helpful...thank you Mr. President, you just solidified any opinions that might have been softening. This isn't a policy issue, and you AREN'T a scientist/engineer, so YOU have no hope of fixing the problem short of continuing to remove roadblocks to nuclear power.

So, the next time you want to alienate people, and talk down to the citizens you're supposed to be LEADING, kindly shut up....
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (20) Jun 27, 2014
This isn't a policy issue

AGWites made it a policy issue with the creation of IPCC.
supamark23
4.1 / 5 (22) Jun 27, 2014
This isn't a policy issue

AGWites made it a policy issue with the creation of IPCC.


Yeah, we get it - you're too stupid to understand the science... now go somewhere else and spread your total ignorance and lies and quit polluting this website with your stupidity.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (20) Jun 27, 2014
AGWites made it a policy issue with the IPCC.
It was Ken Lay of Enron that pushed GHW Bush and Clinton to sign up for Kyoto.
AGWites, real enviro-facsists, demand control of the world economy to 'save the planet'.
Why do the AGWites care about science when they want to use failed socialist policies? They deny the failure of socialism yet pursue those policies.
Now if AGWites really want credibility, they will be promoting science based solutions, not socialist solutions.
supamark23
4.1 / 5 (18) Jun 27, 2014
AGWites made it a policy issue with the IPCC.
It was Ken Lay of Enron that pushed GHW Bush and Clinton to sign up for Kyoto.
AGWites, real enviro-facsists, demand control of the world economy to 'save the planet'.
Why do the AGWites care about science when they want to use failed socialist policies? They deny the failure of socialism yet pursue those policies.
Now if AGWites really want credibility, they will be promoting science based solutions, not socialist solutions.


lol, we all know you're a member of NAMBLA...
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (19) Jun 27, 2014
I'm not a scientist either but I know BS when I smell it.
Then maybe you should try sniffing at the denialist agenda. The stink is unmistakable,
If they were so confident of their prognostications why did global warming have to be rebranded as "climate change".
They? You mean the Republican strategist who talked the Republican party into changing the way they discussed global warming? Ya, you are right, that is BS.
Why are they using current weather to promote their view of global warming. We were told for years that current weather and global warming were not to be confused or intermingled.
Who's doing that? You don;t have a very good grasp of climate science do you? Climate is that trend line (been going up for about 150 years now) Weather is the swings that arise from such a chaotic system. Here, maybe this will help: https://www.youtu...xDFpDp_k
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (19) Jun 27, 2014
AGWites made it a policy issue with the IPCC.
No stupid, idiots like you made it a policy issue when it became clear you were too stupid to understand what the scientists were trying to tell you. Well, yur stupidity in not being able tio understand and your gullibility in listening to those who benefit by keeping the status quo.
It was Ken Lay of Enron that pushed GHW Bush and Clinton to sign up for Kyoto.
Thought you were pro business? Too stupid to see the irony I'm betting.
AGWites, real enviro-facsists, demand control of the world economy to 'save the planet'. Why do the AGWites care about science when they want to use failed socialist policies? They deny the failure of socialism yet pursue those policies.
Now if AGWites really want credibility, they will be promoting science based solutions, not socialist solutions.
Why do you talk? How did you get to be so stupid?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (20) Jun 27, 2014
Ken Lay, pro-business? More like a crony socialist trying to use the govt to gain advantage over his competitors. Just like so many, Solyndra, GE, .......and aided and cheered on by the AGWites.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (17) Jun 27, 2014
Ken Lay, pro-business? More like a crony socialist trying to use the govt to gain advantage over his competitors. Just like so many, Solyndra, GE, .......and aided and cheered on by the AGWites.

I didn;t say Ken Lay quote mining loon, I said I thought you were.

And I was right - you are too stupid to see the irony.
howhot2
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 28, 2014
I love Obama, he just lays truth on the line while the R2 weirdos just carry on about there stupid suing THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA! @R2, Solyndra is an old wingnut issue. Your an ass. It's almost like say, republicans haven't said anything true since Nixon. And its freeking true.

@R2 says: Ken Lay - Enron - Evil. -> imply Clinton -> imply Democrat

What has actually happened since Nixon

Rep -> lie Iraq Rep -> lie Economy -> lie Detroit -> lie Women's health -> ... -> lie at everything and not tax the wealthy a fair progressive tax.

The @R2 needs to look into his soul.

ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (18) Jun 28, 2014
I love Obama

Of course you do. He is a socialist who despises the US Constitution and limits to his power, just like the 'progressive' Wilson.
What has happened since Wilson: WW1, income tax-IRS, Federal Reserve, Regulatory State, Great Depression, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, War on Poverty, Great Society, K-Street lobbyists, IPCC, govt sponsored 'enterprises', funding bankrupt crony businesses like Solydra, ....

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 28, 2014
" "The Constitution makes it clear that a president's job is to faithfully execute the laws," House Speaker John Boehner alleged Wednesday. "In my view, the president has not faithfully executed the laws."

The president mocked it all.

"You know, I might have said in the heat of the moment in one of these debates, 'I want to raise the minimum wage, so sue me when I do,'" the president said. "But I didn't think they were going to take it literally."

"They don't do anything, except block me and call me names," he said.

Mind you, this all comes right on the heels of the Supreme Court issuing what most viewed as a major rebuke of the Obama administration over it's now unconstitutional use of recess appointments. "
http://www.breitb...hallenge
"Mr. Obama said of Republican lawmakers, adding, "They've decided they're going to sue me for doing my job.""
No, you will be sued for NOT doing your job, following the law.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (14) Jun 28, 2014
"The most powerful man on earth is a petulant whiner.

But this isn't the first time he's had a crying jag over his sad, sad life. Get out your tiny violins."

"The whining will continue. President Obama always feels he has been wronged: by Republicans, by the Constitution, by his country. He, by contrast, is never wrong. "I'm not going to apologize for trying to do something while they're doing nothing," he said today."
http://www.breitb...RESIDENT
Socialists always have someone or something to blame when they fail.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (14) Jun 28, 2014
So often, if not most of the time, mockery does signal the presence of connivery and craven machination.
But you do have to be careful what you say and how you say it.
"Climate change", as such, is not a "Liberal plot". Climate change is occurring and is caused by humans, but it's caused by chemtrails, doping the air with weather control chemicals. As such, it's supported by Democrats and Republicans. Begun in the Fifities, chemtrails caused the number of tornadoes per year to stop being constant and skyrocket. Since, 1997, when the air became saturated with chemical so new contributions precipitated out forming vapor lanes, the staccato of most major effects related to climate change have occurred! The plot is the Liberals using climate change to sell their "alternative energy" scams. Windmills and solar farms do even more harm to the environment, but the Liberals use the threat of carbon dioxide to "sell" them!
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 28, 2014
It is a cult of greed, blindly perpetuated by ignorant Chicken Littles, who are incapable of independent thought.
chrisn566
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 29, 2014
Or maybe Mr Obama is trying to distract people from other...things.
cantdrive85
Jun 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TechnoCreed
4.8 / 5 (17) Jun 29, 2014
Oh, where for art thou Lee Harvey?
That is a very hateful comment Cantdrive85, and this is not the first of this kind from you. You should definitely be banned from phys.org. Reported
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 29, 2014
Cantdrive85 you are a hateful ignorant person. Reported. I urge every reasonable person to report this hate speech.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 29, 2014
Cantdrive85 you are a hateful ignorant person. Reported. I urge every reasonable person to report this hate speech.

But your 'hate' speech is ok?
But, no need. Your NSA Big Brother is at work monitoring all.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 29, 2014
""If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy." Justice Louis Brandeis,"

"White House Press Secretary: 'We're Not Just Going to Sit Around and Wait' for Congress to Write Laws"
http://www.breitb...igration

"So, while it is good they put Obama in his place, it is bad that a simple majority of the court, 5-4 couldn't leave it at just that. They went on and rewrote the appointments clause and the recess clause. And that's not to be applauded. And as time goes on, we will see the ill-effects of this. A president will be empowered to now manipulate the system to avoid Senate confirmations.""
http://www.breitb...to-Abuse
JohnGee
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 29, 2014
Screw phys.org. I've reported cantdrive to the Secret Service.

Ryggesogn2, supports assassination of the president as well.

Ban these stupid fuckers. Websites have been shutdown for less phys.org.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 29, 2014
Why would I want Obama to be a martyr?
People in MA still have shrines to JFK overlooking his family history of crime and his debauchery.
Obama needs to suffer as Jimmy Carter suffers, living with his failures.
Carter must be happy:
"It's now official: On foreign policy, Barack Obama is worse than Jimmy Carter."
"But rather than respond to the collapsing world order by supporting our allies and undermining our adversaries, the Obama administration dithers. It is an indication of just how worrisome the situation is that many in Washington are pining for the resolve and fortitude of Jimmy Carter."
http://www.nydail....1847138
No cries of 'racism' yet?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 29, 2014
"Barack Obama led Americans to believe that he would be far more sensitive to privacy and civil liberties than George W. Bush. "
"In this case, the Justice Department took the view that a cellphone is just another object a person may carry, no different from a roll of mints. It was a view that drew scorn from Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote, "That is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon.""
"This administration has a simple philosophy: The government has the right to know everything about you, and you have the right to know squat about the government. "
http://www.realcl...144.html
The Alchemist
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 29, 2014
This article is an example of propaganda and manipulation: Examine your responses to it, look at the banner being raised, and ask "why?"
barakn
4.7 / 5 (14) Jun 29, 2014
Combined with cantdrive85's anti-Semitic rants in other threads, this advocacy for presidential assassination paints a picture of a very disturbed and possibly dangerous individual.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Jun 29, 2014
This article is an example of propaganda and manipulation: Examine your responses to it, look at the banner being raised, and ask "why?"

That's all the AGWites have left.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (12) Jun 29, 2014
Screw phys.org. I've reported cantdrive to the Secret Service.

Ryggesogn2, supports assassination of the president as well.

Ban these stupid fuckers. Websites have been shutdown for less phys.org.


JohnGee: You are absolutely correct. I also want to point out that these are two people who have no idea of what a republic like ours is and should just move to a country that will accept them (Somalia comes to mind). If either of them understood government they would understand that only terrorists support the assassination of a sitting president. By the nature of our country, it is guaranteed that nearly half of the people in the US did not vote for any sitting president. That is completely different from advocating assassination. Those two are sick and dangerous individuals who should be treated as such. I hope the Secret Service responds to your alert. These are wanabe terrorists and it has been made clear after this exchange.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (16) Jun 29, 2014
The Chicken Little syndrome seems to be one in the same as being a liberal.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Jun 29, 2014
"President Barack Obama's "spiritual adviser," Pastor Joel Hunter, recently traveled to Iran to discuss "religious tolerance" with the speaker of Iran's parliament, officials of Iran's Academy of Sciences, Christian and Jewish leaders, and grand ayatollahs in Qom. Hunter will brief Obama.

Who can object to talks, right? Dialogue promotes peace, doesn't it? Only if your partner has a semblance of integrity. Dialogue with brutal, vicious revolutionaries, who lie as a matter of policy, signals only an eagerness to deceive oneself, which is what is arguably happening now in Geneva, Switzerland."
http://www.realcl...146.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Jun 29, 2014
"Even after exterminating legions of their citizens and embarking on endless Five Year Programs, neither Stalin nor Mao could take that last step and actually bend Mother Nature to their ruthless dogma in pursuit of complete and total control. Therefore, it stands to reason that the far less disciplined academics and self-appointed elites running the current Administration in Washington will inevitably fail in their destructive, irrational drive to conform the ever-changing global climate to their theoretical and largely fraudulent pipe dreams."
Planning exclusively for permanent climate conditions is not only foolish but counterproductive both from an economic and a personal standpoint.
"Flexibility and not dogma based on largely falsified "settled science" is a more prudent course of action."
Read more at http://www.commdi...bUTtK.99
RealityCheck
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 29, 2014
Hi cantdrive. :)
Oh, where for art thou Lee Harvey?

Mate, you of all posters here would have realized by now that I am probably the most fairminded person you will ever come across in your life, yes? So it is in this spirit of fairmindedness that I make the following comment/suggestion regarding your comment above.

Mate, that sort of 'solve-by-killing-instead-of-reasoning' mindset is precisely why history has been what it has been, brutal and ignorant savage levels of tragedy that has led to our present predicament worldwide. It is that unreasoning mindset that humanity and science has been trying to get away from because that sort of mindset 'solves' nothing, but only engenders more hatred/tragedy.

So if you meant it as a joking/inciting ploy, then you have gone too far.

So I ask you as a friend of both science and humanity: please retract that comment and apologize before it goes any further; because the global situation is no subject for such ploys.

Thanks in advance. :)
vlaaing peerd
4.4 / 5 (13) Jun 30, 2014
Typical. Many in the US are debating whether GW is real at all which IMO is somewhat strange, what amazes me even more is that it seems to be inherently tied to ones political bias.

How can a measurable phenomenon be on any possible political side? Seriously that doesn't make sense at all! I'm well aware that the USA is a market- and corporate driven society rather than a technocratic one, but it doesn't explain this very black and white bias towards this subject. Are you so convinced "certain" companies, corporates or whatever are benefiting from a GW they are making this up in favor of a "democratic" decision on the matter.

Really,..think about it, that just doesn't make sense.You should be debating how democrats or republicans are going to address the matter, not whether it is real or not. We have scientists to do the latter.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 30, 2014
Really,..think about it, that just doesn't make sense.You should be debating how democrats or republicans are going to address the matter, not whether it is real or not.


The only reason we're still debating on whether or not it's real is because of the idiotic policies that people who accept the theory to fix the problem are peddling over here. The other side knows they can stave that off a long looooong time if they keep the issue stuck in public opinion limbo.

Which is why we should be COMPROMISING and talking about other ways than policy that solving the issue.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (10) Jun 30, 2014
Amazing.... A top Republican can see the woods for the trees.
And talk sense.

http://www.bloomb...ess.html

runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2014
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2014
Amazing.... A top Republican can see the woods for the trees.
And talk sense.

http://www.bloomb...ess.html


"In his eight years as Goldman's chief executive, Paulson had presided over the firm's plunge into the business of buying up subprime mortgages to marginal borrowers and then repackaging them into securities, overseeing the firm's huge positions in what became a fraud-infested market."
"Paulson "knew that if he acted the way he should, that would have burst the bubble. Then Goldman Sachs would have been left with a very substantial loss, and that would have been the end of bonuses at Goldman Sachs.""
http://www.mcclat...son.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2014
"Hank Paulson, former Goldman Sachs. Paulson was the guy that grabbed all the CEOs of all the banks and put 'em in a room and locked the door and said (paraphrasing), "You're not getting outta here until you sign a document accepting TARP money, bailout money."

The Wells Fargo CEO, for one, said, "We don't need it. I'm not in trouble."

"You're not getting outta here unless you sign."

So he had to sign on for a bailout of $25 billion."
http://www.rushli...ing_nuts
There are socialists in all parties.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2014
"Since they have failed to convince people on the basis of the so-called science, since they have failed to convince you that you are destroying the planet, the next gambit is to try to convince you that global warming is destroying your ability to earn money and that you had better make changes in your lifestyle and allow Washington to take even more control in order to fix this serious problem -- and both parties are part and parcel of it.

That is what the establishment is aiming to do. "
http://www.rushli...ing_nuts
JohnGee
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 30, 2014
Ryggesogn2 is a perpetual victim of the no-true-conservative fallacy.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 30, 2014
Really,..think about it, that just doesn't make sense.You should be debating how democrats or republicans are going to address the matter, not whether it is real or not.


The only reason we're still debating on whether or not it's real is because of the idiotic policies that people who accept the theory to fix the problem are peddling over here. The other side knows they can stave that off a long looooong time if they keep the issue stuck in public opinion limbo.

Which is why we should be COMPROMISING and talking about other ways than policy that solving the issue.


MM: I am ready and willing to talk about compromise and working to solve the problem. However, I don't know how that can happen without some sort of policy. Can you expand on that to start the conversation? I think that policy must lead the way to a solution because our utilities will not change their approach without policy changes. However, I am interested in how you see change coming about.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 30, 2014
"Hank Paulson, former Goldman Sachs. Paulson was the guy that grabbed all the CEOs of all the banks and put 'em in a room and locked the door and said (paraphrasing), "You're not getting outta here until you sign a document accepting TARP money, bailout money."

The Wells Fargo CEO, for one, said, "We don't need it. I'm not in trouble."

"You're not getting outta here unless you sign."

So he had to sign on for a bailout of $25 billion."
http://www.rushli...ing_nuts
There are socialists in all parties.


And this is just one example of why Rygg2 has no credibility. Who other than Rygg2 would bring comments from Rush Limbaugh to a science site. He is in contention with Cantdrive for moron of the month, but Candrive is still out ahead.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 30, 2014
Why does anyone care about comments from a former US Treasury Secretary on a 'science' site?
supamark23
5 / 5 (10) Jun 30, 2014
Why does anyone care about comments from a former US Treasury Secretary on a 'science' site?


Because you lot keep saying it'll be too expensive to do anything, which is a lie but then pretty much everything you idiots say is a lie.....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2014
""You can't get any clearer proof of NOAA adjusting past temperatures," Watts wrote. "This isn't just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately."

"In one report they give one number, and in another they give a different one with no explanation to the public as to why," Watts continued. "This is not acceptable. It is not being honest with the public. It is not scientific. It violates the Data Quality Act.""
http://dailycalle...-record/
July 1936 is now the hottest month on record, again.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2014
Why does anyone care about comments from a former US Treasury Secretary on a 'science' site?


Because you lot keep saying it'll be too expensive to do anything, which is a lie but then pretty much everything you idiots say is a lie.....

But thermo ignores his fellow AGWites for introducing the comments of the former CEO of Goldman Sachs about climate, on a 'science' site.
AGWites are silent regarding the support of a billionaire hedge fund manage , but cry foul when a mere millionaire radio talk show host challenges their agenda.
Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 30, 2014
Why does anyone care about comments from a former US Treasury Secretary on a 'science' site?


You made me laugh my ass off. Thread after thread and post after post you make comments devoid of any science.
supamark23
5 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2014
Why does anyone care about comments from a former US Treasury Secretary on a 'science' site?


Because you lot keep saying it'll be too expensive to do anything, which is a lie but then pretty much everything you idiots say is a lie.....

But thermo ignores his fellow AGWites for introducing the comments of the former CEO of Goldman Sachs about climate, on a 'science' site.
AGWites are silent regarding the support of a billionaire hedge fund manage , but cry foul when a mere millionaire radio talk show host challenges their agenda.


considering that you have zero understanding of math, science, engineering, or technology I'm amazed that you keep posting here... oh that's right, you're paid to post lies to science sites because you're a pathetic POS who's too stupid to get a real job.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2014
What I do know about science is what the great scientists say.Science is not consensus, but that is all AGWites can say to support their 'science'.
As Fenynman notes, science with integrity would publish results that support and do not support their theories.
The 'peer' reviewed journals reject results that don't support their agenda and even have withheld data from those who want to verify claims.
This is not science. It's a religion.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2014
"Global warming is a "new religion," not a science, he said in an interview with FoxNews.com.

"I'm convinced that after years of studying the phenomenon, global warming is not the real issue of temperature," said Klaus, an economist by training. "That is the issue of a new ideology or a new religion. A religion of climate change or a religion of global warming. This is a religion which tells us that the people are responsible for the current, very small increase in temperatures. And they should be punished.""
http://www.foxnew...eligion/
Klaus was an expert in computer modeling under the communists.

The holy 'book' of AGWism is THE CLIMATE MODEL.
RealityCheck
4.5 / 5 (11) Jun 30, 2014
Hi ryggesogn2. :)
"Global warming is a "new religion," not a science, he said in an interview with FoxNews.com.

"I'm convinced that after years of studying the phenomenon, global warming is not the real issue of temperature," said Klaus, an economist by training. "That is the issue of a new ideology or a new religion. A religion of climate change or a religion of global warming. This is a religion which tells us that the people are responsible for the current, very small increase in temperatures. And they should be punished.""
http://www.foxnew...eligion/
Klaus was an expert in computer modeling under the communists.

The holy 'book' of AGWism is THE CLIMATE MODEL.


Your political bias and studied stupidity is excruciatingly obvious in every post. When are you going to come to your senses? Or is "Fox News" paid-political-agenda/propaganda your 'paymaster'? Mercenary/Political shill much? Get a clue, shill.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Jun 30, 2014
Do you know who Klaus was?
Fox News reports and lets you decide, unlike Physorg that toes the socialist AGW line.
MIT's Lindzen concurs with the assessment that AGW is a religion.
This is why the AGWites must promote 'consensus'. Apostates can't be tolerated and must be attacked.
Real science depends upon the one. The one who looks at the world and sees something the 'consensus' missed. That's how Charon was discovered.
The shills are the ones who just attack me and others who don't toe the AGW lie.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Jun 30, 2014
" Back in March, Dr James Renwick appeared on TVNZ's Q&A to tell farmers to de-intensify. He was in no doubt that man-made global warming was causing the summer drought.

"Yeah, it is. Yeah, climate change, global warming. Put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and things warm up." The host Corin Dann double-checks: "And you're of no doubt of that?"

"Oh, no, no. There's no other explanation that's remotely plausible.""
"Only religious fundamentalists have certitude. Their knowledge is a belief system that's immune to real world experience and facts."
" Science is also not a person, a job, a group, a qualification, 100 peer-reviewed papers or a received wisdom. It's a method. It's the method of critically testing competing theories. Failed theories are tossed and successful theories are only ever tentative.

Anyone can do science. And scientists can often fall short.

It's Dr Renwick's certitude that gives him away. That's not science."
http://www.nbr.co...not-fact
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2014
Anyone can do science. And scientists can often fall short.


Skippy, that is the silliest thing I never did see posted. For today anyway. Are you the scientist-Skippy or are you just anyone? Now I might not be science smart people like some here, but even I know that the scientists have to fall short sometimes. Because after they discover everything, then there won't be anything else to discover and that doesn't sound like real big fun.

So why don't put on the silly looking pointy cap I picked out for you and pipe down, and let some of the science smart Skippys try to teach you something.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. What you do to make your living? From all the postums you put up I am thinking you get paid to watch the Fox News all day. How much they pay you for that? Non, Cher, I don't want a job, got one me. I'm just curious because they would have to pay most people a lot of money to watch those couyons, unless the watcher is a couyon too, then he would watch for free.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 30, 2014
Anyone can do science. And scientists can often fall short.


Skippy, that is the silliest thing I never did see posted. For today anyway. Are you the scientist-Skippy or are you just anyone? Now I might not be science smart people like some here, but even I know that the scientists have to fall short sometimes. Because after they discover everything, then there won't be anything else to discover and that doesn't sound like real big fun.

So why don't put on the silly looking pointy cap I picked out for you and pipe down, and let some of the science smart Skippys try to teach you something.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. What you do to make your living? From all the postums you put up I am thinking you get paid to watch the Fox News all day. How much they pay you for that? Non, Cher, I don't want a job, got one me. I'm just curious because they would have to pay most people a lot of money to watch those couyons, unless the watcher is a couyon too, then he would watch for free.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 30, 2014
@ Everybody. Sorry about the two times postum. I did not do that on purpose. I don't even know how I did it. But he won't let me take one of them down no. How that work, anybody know?
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 30, 2014
@ P.S. for you ryggu-Skippy. I was not calling you a couyon twice for the two postums. The second one was the mistake. Even though since I'm reading over what you post your self today and deserve to be called the couyon a few times.

What that name mean him anyway? Another one I am surer I never did see.
RealityCheck
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2014
Hi again, ryggesogn2. :) Mate, anyone here will tell you I am a purposely 'loner' independent scientist and scrupulously objective, and that I am as skeptical of 'mainstream concensus' as any impartial observer can be. Which is why I have come to my own observations/conclusions on climate change drivers and risks etc.

Unlike you. You bring your obvious and stupid politics/mercenary/personal 'spin' and
biases' and 'selective out-of-contest' quotes which are just as biased and inaccurate as your own 'propaganda'. That makes your posts IRRELEVANT NOISE and/or purposeful and mindless political/mercenary/personal propaganda, not objective observation of the science itself and the trend apparent to any objective scientist.

Get it? I am as wary of 'mainstream models' as the next skeptic, BUT I AM ALSO OBJECTIVE, unlike you and all the other politically/religiously/mercenarily/personally motivated SHILLS and trolls who blather stupid irrelevancies.

Quit your 'Fox" shilling job, mate.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 30, 2014
""You can't get any clearer proof of NOAA adjusting past temperatures," Watts wrote. "This isn't just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately."

"In one report they give one number, and in another they give a different one with no explanation to the public as to why," Watts continued.


Rygg: It shouldn't surprise anyone that the daily caller, Watts, and you all lie. Here is the site with the changed databases both available and the explanation. Just look idiot.

http://www.ncdc.n...ions.php

You do have to read a bit though. I am sure you and Watts can't read anything technical. This clear reference to the change in data bases and multiple papers have talked about the change for months. You and Watts just can't understand the reason. You just continue to drink the koolaid from Rush and Watts.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2014
@ Everybody. Sorry about the two times postum. I did not do that on purpose. I don't even know how I did it. But he won't let me take one of them down no. How that work, anybody know?


UI: Don't sweat it, it was worth two posts.
otero
Jun 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2014
From this perspective i cannot consider Obama's political proclamations very seriously, even if the anthropogenic origin of global warming would be well-founded from scientific perspective (which unfortunately isn't).


@ Socratic-Skippy. You know I am not the science smart Skippy me. But if so many of the science smart scientists agree it is the problem then maybe ol Ira will think they maybe are on to something. I don't argue either way me.

But let me tell you the one I know real good about the fossil fuels. Even if they don't cause the globe warming up, they still cause the destroying of the wetlands and the wildlife down here in Louisiana. Them oil companies make the canals all through the swamp and the wetlands, they suppose to restorate them when they done. They never do, so the salt water comes in and kills the marsh, and the wetland he goes away.

I am running short of letters they allow so I will P.S. you to finish.
otero
Jun 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2014
P.S. for you Socratic-Skippy. Where I was so? I don't want to waste letters repeating no.

Okayeei, that is the one thing the fossil fuel peoples do that is terriable bad. Because the wetlands go, there is no buffering for the big storms that come in every few years. Katrina she not be nearly as bad if the wetlands were still like they were years ago when I was the little-Skippy. That is truth what I tell you and you don't got to be the scientist to know that.

I tell one another thing about them oil companies. Them B.&P. Skippys don't come out into the wetlands and the swamp no more without the private guards with guns with them. They have ruined a lot of people down here with their Deep Water Horizon spillum back five or four years ago. Things still ain't right with fish, the shrimp and crabs. I won't even eat the duck I shoot no more unless he got papers saying he just got in from Canada today.

That's what the fossil fuels is bad for. That I me Ira knows about.
otero
Jun 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otero
Jun 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 30, 2014
@Otero, Your support of cold fusion is well placed and well meaning but It is not a technology that well get us out of the climate disaster we face right now. Solar/Wind and Biofuels will have to be it for the future grid scale systems. I'm sure Dr. Swartz would agree. At the same time we have to bring all forces to bear on the cessation of CO2 production from fossil fuels. It's that simple, and I'm thrilled to see President Obama supporting this position.

howhot2
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2014
My friend @R2, says;
The shills are the ones who just attack me and others who don't toe the AGW lie.


First what is wrong with the AGW theory; the thing you call an "AGW lie"? To date, there is not a lie to be found in AGW theory, nor a false hood, nor a hood wink, nor a nod-n-wink except by those created by Koch industry backed propagandist like "Watt's up with that", etc, etc, and the 150 or so other bogus koch industry bloggers, and paid trolls. We do science, you do trolling.

As far as AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming BTW), lies, that is just crap made up in your mind. The breath of the AGW "theory" is so all in compassing, it's frustrating to watch you deniers flounder in your bath of ignorance. Just have fun being stupid R2, I guess.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (10) Jun 30, 2014
My friend @R2, says;
The shills are the ones who just attack me and others who don't toe the AGW lie.


First what is wrong with the AGW theory; the thing you call an "AGW lie"? To date, there is not a lie to be found in AGW theory, nor a false hood, nor a hood wink, nor a nod-n-wink except by those created by Koch industry backed propagandist like "Watt's up with that", etc, etc, and the 150 or so other bogus koch industry bloggers, and paid trolls. We do science, you do trolling.

As far as AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming BTW), lies, that is just crap made up in your mind. The breath of the AGW "theory" is so all in compassing, it's frustrating to watch you deniers flounder in your bath of ignorance. Just have fun being stupid R2, I guess.

Conspiracy!
otero
Jun 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skepticus_Rex
4.3 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2014
""You can't get any clearer proof of NOAA adjusting past temperatures," Watts wrote. "This isn't just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately."

"In one report they give one number, and in another they give a different one with no explanation to the public as to why," Watts continued. "This is not acceptable. It is not being honest with the public. It is not scientific. It violates the Data Quality Act.""
http://dailycalle...-record/
July 1936 is now the hottest month on record, again.

It takes time for the NOAA to get the data right, after quality checking. This is why you can't rely on anything unless it is two years older than when originally taken. At least the NOAA were honest enough to change the data back when they realized the flaw in the newer data. That should count for something. :)
Skepticus_Rex
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2014
@Otero, Your support of cold fusion is well placed and well meaning but It is not a technology that well get us out of the climate disaster we face right now. Solar/Wind and Biofuels will have to be it for the future grid scale systems. I'm sure Dr. Swartz would agree. At the same time we have to bring all forces to bear on the cessation of CO2 production from fossil fuels. It's that simple, and I'm thrilled to see President Obama supporting this position.

Would that be before or after your utility rates skyrocket? Will you feel the same way when your rates jump to where you barely can afford them? Can you afford the coming increases? There are many who won't. Make the poor suffer and slim down the middle class. That's the ticket! People at the expense of the environment. On the other hand, a slow transition is better for both economy and people. Given the slowed rate of global temperature increase for over a decade, we still have plenty of time. Or, so it would appear.
howhot2
4 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2014
Solar/Wind and Biofuels will have to be it for the future grid scale systems.
The biofuels just lead to draining of soil and deforestation, which will make the things even worse. We have not enough of energy for complete recycling of the phosphorus and nitrogen with fertilizers, so that the biofuels are unsustainable from this perspective. The negative effects of wind plants to atmospheric circulation and droughts are known already too.

I don't see a problem with using oil in certain items where oil is necessary. There are some chemicals that have to be made with long chains of hydrocarbons after all. As a fuel though, most can be replaced with electric or biofuel alternatives. Fuels for Jets, airplanes, semis', farm tractor, construction machinery, and the like will have to be hydrocarbon fuel and this is where I think biofuels make sense in the goal of reducing CO2. The more that biofuels can be exchanged for oil based the better.

howhot2
4 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2014
Would that be before or after your utility rates skyrocket?
And what makes you think utilities will skyrocket?
Will you feel the same way when your rates jump to where you barely can afford them?
No!
Can you afford the coming increases?
What Increase?
There are many who won't. Make the poor suffer and slim down the middle class. That's the ticket!
What do you know about poor and middle class?
People at the expense of the environment.
The Environment has to take (will take) president eventually.
On the other hand, a slow transition is better for both economy and people. Given the slowed rate of global temperature increase for over a decade, we still have plenty of time.
Actually there is no time at all. Sure global warming appears slow to us humans, but it so fast compared to geological history.You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. AGW is an extinction event right at our door steps and you a fool not to acknowledge it!
Skepticus_Rex
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2014
And what makes you think utilities will skyrocket?

Obama himself said so.
What Increase?

The "skyrocketing" rates Obama said would come if his energy plan were adopted, along with bankrupting companies who continue to invest in coal-fired plants.
What do you know about poor and middle class?

Quite a bit, actually. I've been in the poverty class and am now at the bottom of the Middle class since my forced retirement.
The Environment has to take (will take) president eventually.

It is important not to do it at the expense of people. The death toll could be catastrophic in areas where use of fossil fuels currently spell the difference the difference between life and death, and could put considerably more strain on the environment than currently. This year has seen a major delay of the onset of Spring. If that continues, the worst is yet to come. Hiking prices now would be foolhardy when we aren't prepared for situations that could arise. Greentech isn't ready.
howhot2
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2014
Obama himself said so.

He did? When?

The "skyrocketing" rates Obama said would come if his energy plan were adopted, along with bankrupting companies who continue to invest in coal-fired plants


Haha, that's a laugh. Do you think this koch industry bought and paid for Republican congress will ever pass and *Obama* energy plan. You have got to be joking. Personally I hope anyone that invests in coal fired plants goes bankrupt!
.
Quite a bit, actually. I've been in the poverty class and am now at the bottom of the Middle class since my forced retirement.

Well If I were you, I certainly would be very concerned about the Tea Party taking your social security and giving it to the next trillion dollar Bush.

howhot2
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 01, 2014
Oh horseshit Skepticus; You say
It is important not to do it at the expense of people. The death toll could be catastrophic in areas where use of fossil fuels currently spell the difference the difference between life and death
The funny joke is, do the oil/coal industries care? OMG, concern about life and death. That is pure 100 percent BS Skepticus. Your a troll.

This year has seen a major delay of the onset of Spring. If that continues, the worst is yet to come.
Yeah, /winter/spring/summer/fall is relative to where you live, so for your region it must be odd. Chances are your local weather was effected and modified by global warming. That is just the way global warming has effected us. Some are hit harder than others.


runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2014
Why does anyone care about comments from a former US Treasury Secretary on a 'science' site?


Because you lot keep saying it'll be too expensive to do anything, which is a lie but then pretty much everything you idiots say is a lie.....

But thermo ignores his fellow AGWites for introducing the comments of the former CEO of Goldman Sachs about climate, on a 'science' site.
AGWites are silent regarding the support of a billionaire hedge fund manage , but cry foul when a mere millionaire radio talk show host challenges their agenda.


ryggy baby ....

It was me that "introduced" the comments of Paulson to this site.
And if you want to know why - then read the title of this article.

It is VERY relevant to that and to science in that even trhe most politically intransident can "wake up and smell the roses"

I'll not be holding my breath about you however.
Not, of course that it matters, as you remain in the camp that is extremely friendly with the fairies.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (2) Jul 01, 2014
He did? When?

A few years ago, on public TV. The entire SFGate interview was still around somewhere, last time I checked. Google it. If you cannot find it I think I can find it for you.
Haha, that's a laugh. Do you think this koch industry bought and paid for Republican congress will ever pass and *Obama* energy plan. You have got to be joking.

He will if he gets his way this mid-term election.
Personally I hope anyone that invests in coal fired plants goes bankrupt!

Well, then, enjoy your rate hikes.
Well If I were you, I certainly would be very concerned about the Tea Party taking your social security and giving it to the next trillion dollar Bush.
I'm more concerned about what the Democrats are doing to keep Social Security from going insolvent by 2030--nothing. They just sit back and do nothing to help the system stay afloat except increase the age requirement.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2014
But thermo ignores his fellow AGWites for introducing the comments of the former CEO of Goldman Sachs about climate, on a 'science' site.

Ryggy baby....

It was me that "introduced" Paulson's comments to this site - and if you can't comprehend why then read the title of the article. You merely use politics in any any/every thread.

It's relevant here because it shows that the science is getting through to even the most politically intransigent - and that your camp are becoming increasingly maginalised, as only those very friendly with the Fairies have the capacity to deny the obvious.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (2) Jul 01, 2014
The funny joke is, do the oil/coal industries care? OMG, concern about life and death. That is pure 100 percent BS Skepticus.

Nope, it is not BS, and I am not a troll. But, believe whatever fantasy you wish. Makes no difference to me, really. Are the oil and coal companies concerned? Sure--about their bottom line. No customers no business. Make their offerings too expensive and less people buy, meaning less money. But that isn't the only thing at stake. Do what government are trying to do and it will result in the cost of living going up. Everything will rise in price when utility/fuel rates go up.
Yeah, /winter/spring/summer/fall is relative to where you live, so for your region it must be odd. Chances are your local weather was effected and modified by global warming. That is just the way global warming has effected us. Some are hit harder than others.

It's not called global warming anymore. Its called climate disruption. Can't you keep up with your current affairs?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 01, 2014
A shift to renewable energy will only replace one non-renewable resource (fossil fuel) with another (metals and minerals) and energy of fossil fuels with energy required for mining and treatment the raw source.


Err...
The solar panels on my roof are projected to last for at least 25 years.

Not go up in a cloud of CO2 smoke up my chimney in hours.

FFS
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Jul 01, 2014
http://judithcurr...d-right/

In the words of George Takei, "Oh my!" Now, this was interesting, and much deeper than what I was aware of when I posted an above comment regarding honesty of the NOAA. I hope it's just data quality adjustment and improvement but I am not so certain, now.

Hopefully the NOAA will be addressing this issue with up to 40% of the data not being raw data but estimated from stations that didn't even report in some places and, some that did report but were altered to make the most recent readings warmer and readings from the past to look cooler. I agree with Curry. This will be interesting to watch.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2014
It was me that "introduced" Paulson's comments to this site -

I know, a fellow AGWite.
Rush is even more relevant as he has been a keen political observer of the AGWite movement from its inception in the late 1980s.
First what is wrong with the AGW theory;

THE CLIMATE MODEL can't explain pre-industrial, non-anthropogenic climate changes.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2014
Skepticus
Would that be before or after your utility rates skyrocket?


This is just scaremongering. Are you aware of the cost curve on solar panels and wind turbines? There is stacks of information out there on it. Here is one example - http://www.greent...han-Coal

There is every reason to believe that the cost curve is going to continue down. This suggests that the foresight of those willing to invest in the research are now about to pay off. Yes - there is still the intermittency problem - but that is being dealt with. The grid of the future will be a mix of renewables, lots of long distance UHV transmission, perhaps with some nukes to stabilize, or perhaps storage. There are plenty of examples of where this is all heading - Texas wind for one, Europe's super grid plans, etc.
strangedays
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 01, 2014
I am pleased the president Obama is willing to recognize the science. This is a great quote -

"I'm not a doctor either, but if a bunch of doctors tell me that tobacco can cause lung cancer, then I'll say, okay. Right? I mean, it's not that hard,"

The dominoes are definitely falling. The British Medical Association is divesting from fossil fuels - because of - "the "scale and immediacy of the threat to human survival, health and wellbeing" posed by unmitigated climate change."

http://www.treehu...els.html

Let's see - listen to Rush Limbaugh, or listen to every major scientific organization on the planet, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Steven Hawking, and now the British Medical Association - tough choice there!

Skepticus_Rex
1.2 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2014
This is just scaremongering.

No, its not. It's what Obama stated would happen if he implemented his energy plan. He said so himself. Are you calling him a liar? :-)
Are you aware of the cost curve on solar panels and wind turbines? There is stacks of information out there on it. Here is one example - http://www.greent...han-Coal

There is every reason to believe that the cost curve is going to continue down....

But, to force it all and cause rates to "skyrocket" (Obama's own description of what would happen if his energy plan is implemented) before everything is in place and solar actually is cheaper than coal, is foolhardy and costly for the poor and middle class. Most people will never be able to afford their own solar, and where I live it would cost me almost $70,000 for a system to go off-grid. I checked. I have neither the money, nor roof space, nor yard space for the full set of panels I need.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2014

"Fox News Hits 50-Quarter Ratings Streak With Megyn Kelly on the Rise, Benghazi Still a Hot Topic"
http://www.hollyw...0-715660

where I live it would cost me almost $70,000 for a system to go off-grid. I checked.

Would that improve the value of your house?
What is the useful life of the material and its protective coatings? In addition to acquisition costs one must factor in future replacement costs, to be honest.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (2) Jul 01, 2014
No, it would not improve the value of my home, which could not sustain the weight of the entire system. I would have to rebuild from scratch a substantial part of my home, roof included, and still could not contain all the panels I would need on the roof.

There is also the cost of redundancy, too, because hardware fails and would need to be replaced when that happens. The cells themselves essentially would be guaranteed for 25 years but that doesn't apply to the inverter or infrastructure, not to mention the cost of replacing a battery bank every five years. No worries.

I have a hybrid generation system I'm designing from the ground up, that'll suit my needs, and will continue to generate power even absent wind and sun (scientific and computer equipment needing lots of power betimes), but I am at least another year away from building a prototype. With forced retirement I'm not sure even then. It could be a couple years off, the way things are going, even though it'll cost less.
strangedays
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 01, 2014
Are you calling him a liar? :-)


No I am not calling him a liar - I am calling you a scaremonger. In an interview he did 61/2 years ago - President Obama was wrong. He did not understand the speed at which renewable energy prices would fall. I do not support cap and trade - I don't think we need it - economics are going to win out - and renewables are going to accomplish the task of reducing our C02 emmissions. There is tons of info out there on the web that will help you understand that renewables are currently at grid parity - and prices will keep falling. There is lots of indication that nuclear is also going to flourish - and we have the basis for an amazing - low carbon - low cost energy system.

Your information on solar is wildly off base - I can give you some references if you need - but solar is very cost competitive - especially at the utility scale - and the prices are going to keep falling.
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2014
Would that improve the value of your house?


Yes - by close to $6,000 per Kilo-watt installed - which means it is a great investment - reduces your energy bills, improves the value of your house - what's not to like?

http://cleantechn...-values/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2014
Would that improve the value of your house?


Yes - by close to $6,000 per Kilo-watt installed - which means it is a great investment - reduces your energy bills, improves the value of your house - what's not to like?

http://cleantechn...-values/

A more realistic assessment:
http://www.zillow.../447226/
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2014
Wow Ryggy - you present a 2 year old article - you have no idea how fast the costs are coming down.

I will do some more digging later - have to run - here - read this.

http://www.solarc...returns/
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2014
Are you calling him a liar? :-)


No I am not calling him a liar - I am calling you a scaremonger. In an interview he did 61/2 years ago - President Obama was wrong. He did not understand the speed at which renewable energy prices would fall. I do not support cap and trade - I don't think we need it ...
Your information on solar is wildly off base - I can give you some references if you need - but solar is very cost competitive - especially at the utility scale - and the prices are going to keep falling.

Nope, no scare-mongering but repeating what Obama wants. He is not wrong.

No, it's not off-base. I priced the system myself, and I got several estimates. With materials and labor, etc., I ended up with a figure exceeding $70,000. Even if we counted just the $6,000/kW, that still is $60,000 for 10 kW. That is my peak electrical need for most purposes to get off-grid. That doesn't include the redundant inverter system, the battery bank, installation, and retrofit.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2014
Wow Ryggy - you present a 2 year old article - you have no idea how fast the costs are coming down.

I will do some more digging later - have to run - here - read this.

http://www.solarc...returns/

The 3 L's of real estate: location, location, location.
If you plan to live in your solar house forever, more power to you.
But don't count on any potential buyer to be willing pay or any mortgage company be willing to finance.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2014
"This clearly reveals that, in terms of rate per 100,000, the decline in cold-related death rate easily outweighs the increase in the heat-related death rate. So overall, for any individual in the UK, the risk of a temperature-related death is expected to fall steadily due to climate change. Bring it on! "
http://understand...aybe-not
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2014
No, it's not off-base. I priced the system myself, and I got several estimates.


When and where did you get these estimates? I think you are getting ripped off.

Here is a Forbes article - putting the current price of a 4 KW system - at about $20,000

http://www.forbes...ed-tape/

You do not have to go off grid - you can remain grid tied in most parts of the world - and eliminate the need for batteries.

Understand - we are still on the leading edge of this revolution - and everything depends on where you live. Prices in Germany are half what they are in the U.S. - and electricity costs are much higher - so of course the economics are more favorable. Australia looks like it is going to be a very hot market - due to their solar insolation, and high electricity costs. My electricity costs are still a little too cheap - and I would have to pay to take down 5 huge trees - kind of counter productive.
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2014
Skepticus - I live in a 2,000 square foot home. Last year I used 6700 Kwh of power. My electricity bill was approximately $850 - which includes about a 10 % surcharge for electing 100% wind power. 2 KW of panels would almost eliminate my electricity bill. Despite living in a country with very inexpensive power - as you can see - solar panels would be very cost competitive - especially as we have net metering.
howhot2
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2014
If you do some shopping, thin film solar panels are now advertised at $0.34/Watt That is about 1/3 the cost of coal! And solar just keeps on giving and giving for the next 25 years. You can get 3000 watts of panels for under $1000. Certainly an 3KW grid tied system could be installed for under $5000.
howhot2
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2014
On cap and trade, that is an old republican idea anyway. Typical of repubs to propose something that requires layers of government regulation. Regardless, the merits of Cap-n-trade are not bad. It creates a fixed limit as to the amount of CO2 generated by industry and it forces industry to reduce wasteful CO2 expenditures, It is a regulatory burden on some smaller industries that would not normally have to comply, but at the same time, they too can be rewarded for developing practices that reduce CO2 emissions.

If you approach CO2 as a global problem, I really don't see an alternative to Cap-n-trade. Global cooperation is necessary for action to occur, and agreements have to be made among countries as to specific reductions. Cap-n-trade is perfect in that model, fits well into free market ideas, and fixes global CO2 output and makes CO2 reduction a marketable commodity.

The reason we don't have Cap-n-trade rests with the soulless repubs and there denier minions.
Kalopin
2 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2014
duped from the start!
Tesla would have given us free energy sources, but Edison, G.E., Westinghouse, government,... wanted profits. ANY 'for profit' service will become abused! yes, you all probably know this, but did you know that there are simple alternatives?

Besides solar, wind, geothermal and hydro there is kinetic and regenerational. This is the use of wasted and unused energy from sources already in place:
One example would be to place collector cells within light bulbs, at the top, where the light is not needed, to collect unused energy, charge capacitors and to be reused at will...
Another would be to add generators within the wheels on the road and on the rails. Well worth any friction loss, 'wheel regenerators' could produce enough energy to replace all fossils...

Please see: "Kalopin's off topic post from solar/wind/nuclear" @thescienceforum.com

These are just a couple of simple solutions being overlooked [for profits?] that could easily be implemented in a short time;]
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2014
Tesla would have given us free energy sources,

Tesla needed money to live his lavish lifestyle. I doubt he would have given anything away.
Kalopin
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2014
Do you know who Klaus was?
Fox News reports and lets you decide, unlike Physorg that toes the socialist AGW line.
MIT's Lindzen concurs with the assessment that AGW is a religion.
This is why the AGWites must promote 'consensus'. Apostates can't be tolerated and must be attacked.
Real science depends upon the one. The one who looks at the world and sees something the 'consensus' missed. That's how Charon was discovered.
The shills are the ones who just attack me and others who don't toe the AGW lie.


but no one wants to breathe the dirty air!
although there are much cleaner ways to use fossils, it seems no one understands/cares enough to make the change. Both sides are full of religous nuts$, but must exaggerate to clarify, we do not need to use fossil fuels for general electrical consumption.

in fact, don't you think it would be more responsible to safely store these energy sources for any time when they might be needed. You got kids?
What will future generations conclude? :-]
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 02, 2014
no one wants to breathe the dirty air!

Air pollution has been declining in the west for the past several decades while use of fossil fuels have increased.
we do not need to use fossil fuels for general electrical consumption.

How much do you want to pay for electricity?
barakn
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 02, 2014
"This clearly reveals that, in terms of rate per 100,000, the decline in cold-related death rate easily outweighs the increase in the heat-related death rate. So overall, for any individual in the UK, the risk of a temperature-related death is expected to fall steadily due to climate change. Bring it on! "
http://understand...aybe-not

Oh, thank goodness, 0.9% of the world's population will be safer. Let's destroy the environment for the UK's sake.
Kalopin
1 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2014
How much do you want to pay for electricity?


zero.
once the infrastructure, employees and any maintenance are dealt with, there is no other cost. now subtract- http://www.taxpay...-in-2012 about 120 billion dollars and "...big oil continues to enjoy billions of dollars in taxpayer-backed subsidies..."
this is the middle classes money that goes to schools, roads, parks,...
and is being stripped by a plutocracy promoting-buying politicians that allow big buisness to hide behind a false capitalism, using the oppression of communism, creating the unwanted need of socialism...

sad, but either convince them that they can make more from safer technologies or somehow get rid of these type tyrants. government is supposed to work for 'we the people', not just 1%, but they have the money to give to the ones who give money and have access to the 'discount' window.

alternatives will end their way of life and they know!
Kalopin
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2014
no one wants to breathe the dirty air!

Air pollution has been declining in the west for the past several decades while use of fossil fuels have increased.


true that we CAN improve air quality, but this will not prevent excessive co2 emissions causing greenhouse.
sea-level rise will not only flood coastal areas but will eventually cause an imbalance, disturbing orbital elements. this will produce more earthquakes, severe weather, impacts from neos [and maybe even the Moon!], volcanism- it is a 'snowball' effect that has mostly gone unnoticed...
our energy sources are primitive, there are plenty of ways to generate electricity without such extreme heat dissipation...
using uranium to boil water, coal, natural gas, or oil is ignorant! when there are much safer alternatives such as hydro, geothermal, solar, wind, kinetic, & regenerative.
not just light, heat, pressure but it is motion that creates electricity.

preaching will not stop greed. it must be confronted! ;-]]
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2014
once the infrastructure, employees and any maintenance are dealt with, there is no other cost.

How is this to be dealt with?
Kalopin
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2014
once the infrastructure, employees and any maintenance are dealt with, there is no other cost.

How is this to be dealt with?


what do you think? who cares to make a strong middle class, economy and who will care for the environment?
so should it be privatized and let the market decide or should someone govern fairness, equality, justice and environmental protection?

the decision has already been made by the greed of those involved! it is now time to step in and make it right or accept the catastrophic outcome! what would be your time scale?

we already know fossils will not last and we know what they are doing, the only problem is that 'we' are not understanding the urgency until tipping points and even after major catastrophe all is made to return to the same situation, believing there to be no difference- rebuilding the ignorance...

at current rate it appears history will repeat and catastrophe will, once again, triumph over technology. no safety even for wealthy!
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014
"This clearly reveals that, in terms of rate per 100,000, the decline in cold-related death rate easily outweighs the increase in the heat-related death rate. So overall, for any individual in the UK, the risk of a temperature-related death is expected to fall steadily due to climate change. Bring it on! "
http://understand...aybe-not

Oh, thank goodness, 0.9% of the world's population will be safer. Let's destroy the environment for the UK's sake.

Yep barakn
This is what is ultimately so hateful about, at least some, denialists - the enormous selfishness they display. I'd rather be a socialist (I'm not) than a rabidly hateful right-winger who cares more about his/her "tax dollars" and the weather in his/her back-yard than the fate of the more unfortunate in the world, not to mention those that will follow us.
I await ryggy's response with undisguised apathy.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2014
no safety even for wealthy

Compare natural disaster (earthquakes, volcanoes, typhoons, ...) that occur in wealthy regions and in poor regions.
The poor suffer the most.
AGWites promote socialist policies that lead to poverty. If you are really concerned about any upcoming catastrophe, you must support having a vibrant, prospering economy that can afford strong infrastructure and markets that can quickly adapt.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2014
"The earthquake in Haiti was a magnitude of 7.0. According to Wikipedia, the 1989 Loma Prieta quake in San Francisco was either 7.0 or 6.9 depending on which scale is used. In other words, the intensities were fairly similar. Haiti is devastated. If the New York Times is correct, the death toll could be in the tens of thousands. The death toll in the 1989 quake was 63, if you include indirect deaths due the quake."
" Wealth mitigates natural disasters. You would think that those who worry about the poor of the world would promote policies that increase wealth. Wealth mitigates natural disasters. You would think that those who worry about the poor of the world would promote policies that increase wealth. Instead, they push policies that restrain wealth creation, and they do it intentionally and knowing it will restrain wealth creation."
http://www.fee.or...isasters
barakn
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2014
Funny you should mention the wealth connection. Federal and state dollars went into scientific research of what building methods produced structures that could survive earthquakes. Those dollars came from taxes. And regulations were designed and enforced to ensure those building methods were used to produce earthquake-stable structures. So it's really a story of how science, taxes, and regulations saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Skepticus_Rex
not rated yet Jul 02, 2014
When and where did you get these estimates? I think you are getting ripped off.

Here is a Forbes article - putting the current price of a 4 KW system - at about $20,000

http://www.forbes...ed-tape/

...


Got the estimates last year. Note that 20,000 is the average cost, as the article itself states. But, that is for a 4 kW system. I already told you I needed a 10 kW system. And, if I were to go solar (which I cannot without rebuilding my home and chopping down trees) I would have no desire or intention to remain tied to the grid. What would be the point of that? So I would have to enjoy further hikes and additional regulation? Have you any idea the additional kinds of expenses there are for a grid-tie system with some utilities? And of the fact that I still would have to pay $5/month or more just for the privilege of being attached to the grid? Or, that there are days when limited sun and snow obscure the panels where I live? Etc. It's also not feasible for me, financially.
Skepticus_Rex
3 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2014
If you do some shopping, thin film solar panels are now advertised at $0.34/Watt That is about 1/3 the cost of coal! And solar just keeps on giving and giving for the next 25 years. You can get 3000 watts of panels for under $1000. Certainly an 3KW grid tied system could be installed for under $5000.

I don't want to be grid-tied, if I am to use solar. I want off-grid and solar isn't going to get me there. Period. Perhaps if the tech improves to well over 50% efficiency and this is commercialized, it might have a running chance. But, it's not there yet.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2014
@howhot,

We don't have cap and trade because it would be exceedingly bad for the American economy and for both the poor and middle classes. Democrats want that (because they want to eliminate a middle class). Republicans don't because they want to keep making money off of a large middle class.

@Kalopin,

Why not go find some actual, physical evidence to support your ad hoc, null hypothesis of a moon impact?
howhot2
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2014
@skepticus
We don't have cap and trade because it would be exceedingly bad for the American economy and for both the poor and middle classes. Democrats want that (because they want to eliminate a middle class). Republicans don't because they want to keep making money off of a large middle class.


Wow. I have so many questions to ask you. How did you ever come to conceive of the idea that Democrats want to eliminate the middle class? But beside that bit of ignorance, let's get to the question of cap and trade. The purpose of cap-n-trade is not to further enrich some man with more wealth, it's to reduce mankind's CO2 output from fossil fuel combustion. If you been reading any modern literature, you will realize that Global warming is no joking matter.

Global warming as it is currently developing is far more serious than anything mankind (or planetary life) has faced. It's a man made extinction event and all that is left is the dying.
howhot2
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2014
If you do some shopping, thin film solar panels are now advertised at $0.34/Watt That is about 1/3 the cost of coal! And solar just keeps on giving and giving for the next 25 years. You can get 3000 watts of panels for under $1000. Certainly an 3KW grid tied system could be installed for under $5000.

I don't want to be grid-tied, if I am to use solar. I want off-grid and solar isn't going to get me there. Period. Perhaps if the tech improves to well over 50% efficiency and this is commercialized, it might have a running chance. But, it's not there yet.


Unless you have your own natural gas well in your back yard, I have know idea how you could exist "off-grid" and still have the comfort of a modern electric home. You get what you pay for. If you don't want grid-tied, fine buy batteries. If you want to go total off grid, you might as well replace the oil in your car with biofuels that you can scrounge, otherwise your dependent on BIG OIL and not free.


strangedays
4 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2014
Skepticus
I would have no desire or intention to remain tied to the grid. What would be the point of that?


The point is to eliminate the need for batteries. So you have to pay a connection fee? That will be a lot cheaper than a battery bank.

Why do you need 10K? I have shown with real world numbers - that a 2K system would almost completely eliminate the electricity bill for a 2000 sq ft house.
barakn
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
"This clearly reveals that, in terms of rate per 100,000, the decline in cold-related death rate easily outweighs the increase in the heat-related death rate. So overall, for any individual in the UK, the risk of a temperature-related death is expected to fall steadily due to climate change. Bring it on! "
http://understand...aybe-not -soggyring2

Did the paper incorporate the well known fact that murder rates increase with temperature? It didn't? Oh, dear, then the numbers in your link are incomplete. http://www.hks.ha...INAL.pdf
Skepticus_Rex
not rated yet Jul 03, 2014
Unless you have your own natural gas well in your back yard, I have know idea how you could exist "off-grid" and still have the comfort of a modern electric home. You get what you pay for. If you don't want grid-tied, fine buy batteries. If you want to go total off grid, you might as well replace the oil in your car with biofuels that you can scrounge, otherwise your dependent on BIG OIL and not free.

Buying batteries is insufficient. They cannot hold a charge long enough without expanding the system to on the order of several 1,000s of dollar more. And, I am working on that oil in the car problem. Once I get past the magnetic flux issues I have been trying to solve with one of my prototypes, I will no longer need gasoline or batteries in an electric car, hybrid or otherwise.
Skepticus_Rex
not rated yet Jul 03, 2014
Skepticus
I would have no desire or intention to remain tied to the grid. What would be the point of that?


The point is to eliminate the need for batteries. So you have to pay a connection fee? That will be a lot cheaper than a battery bank.

Why do you need 10K? I have shown with real world numbers - that a 2K system would almost completely eliminate the electricity bill for a 2000 sq ft house.


I didn't see any real world numbers. I saw what you think would do it for you. So, why not buy the system you keep proposing to me, get it hooked up, and find out for yourself that your numbers are wrong?

I need 10kW to power computer equipment and a good amount of scientific equipment. You really think I'm about to give up science because I was forced into retirement? Not going to happen. I'd have to be put into the coffin and flasks and electronic instruments pried from my cold, dead hands before I'd give up science. So, I'll find another solution other than solar.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014

Did the paper incorporate the well known fact that murder rates increase with temperature? It didn't? Oh, dear, then the numbers in your link are incomplete. http://www.hks.ha...INAL.pdf



Oh great, now the AGWites have more fodder to promote gun control...
strangedays
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2014
I didn't see any real world numbers. I saw what you think would do it for you. So, why not buy the system you keep proposing to me, get it hooked up, and find out for yourself that your numbers are wrong?


Really? Then you have a reading problem. I showed you how many Kwh's of power I used last year, how many hours of sunlight we get, and how much my electricity bill was. Those are real world numbers. The reason I have not yet installed a system, is that I would have to take down 5 huge trees, and my electricity bill is too cheap to justify the cost. I already explained that. You did not explain why you need 10K. If we can keep my electricity rates this cheap - I may never need to install panels myself - but that does not change the fact that we are living in a new world - and solar is going to become the dominant power source. Of course I could be wrong - and there are possible game changers out there - perhaps small modular nukes. Bring it on.
Skepticus_Rex
not rated yet Jul 03, 2014
Really? Then you have a reading problem. I showed you how many Kwh's of power I used last year, how many hours of sunlight we get, and how much my electricity bill was. Those are real world numbers. The reason I have not yet installed a system, is that I would have to take down 5 huge trees, and my electricity bill is too cheap to justify the cost. I already explained that. You did not explain why you need 10K....


Yes, I did explain above what I needed the power for. And, 2kW of panels likely won't get you off-grid. You could use this to estimate your needs but it lowballs the estimates and only estimates for the US: http://www.afford...lculator

Using that (guessing 5.0 peak solar hours but I don't know where you are so its a guess) off-grid is 4.65 DC kW required.

Or, you can use this one for Germany or elsewhere: http://www.ecowho...ator.php

This one suggests using alternate power for winter.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2014
Wow. I have so many questions to ask you. How did you ever come to conceive of the idea that Democrats want to eliminate the middle class? But beside that bit of ignorance, let's get to the question of cap and trade. The purpose of cap-n-trade is not to further enrich some man with more wealth, it's to reduce mankind's CO2 output from fossil fuel combustion. If you been reading any modern literature, you will realize that Global warming is no joking matter.

Global warming as it is currently developing is far more serious than anything mankind (or planetary life) has faced. It's a man made extinction event and all that is left is the dying.

If 40% of the stations are being infilled with data from other stations, and if NOAA really did add heat to our time and added cold to past time, that is a real problem that needs addressing before exaggerating. Everything the Dems do reduces the middle class and makes them poorer. How do they not want that class diminished?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2014
Federal and state dollars went into scientific research of what building methods produced structures that could survive earthquakes. Those dollars came from taxes


With no wealth to plunder, there can be no taxes.

Why must plundered wealth be used?
Underwriters Laboratory was created by insurance companies.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is funded by insurance companies. Their tests are more challenging than the govt.
Why would a turnpike be built with shoddy materials?
"As a result of Hurricane Andrew, one of the first standards Florida adopted was the wind provisions from the the American Society of Civil Engineers' standards, which encompasses the national standard for wind requirements, he said. "
The standard was from the ASCE, not a govt entity.
""The codes and standards community has been lagging behind the sales and installation of the solar panels," Mr. Davis said. "We do not have a published nationally recognized standard that properly addresses this issu"
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2014
How did you ever come to conceive of the idea that Democrats want to eliminate the middle class?

Observation.
Watch what 'liberals' do, not what they promise.
Skepticus_Rex
not rated yet Jul 03, 2014
@strangedays,

By the way, if you are in Germany, is the following still the case?

http://www.forbes...ploding/
Kalopin
3 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2014
the solar panel market was,is and more than likely will be subjected to the wealthhoarders greed. prices are purposely rigged: http://www.slate....obs.html [what patent?!, children and their 'trade wars'!]

I like the 'solar panel highways' idea: http://science.ho...way2.htm maybe a few obstacles but, as you can see, there are actually a plethora of innovations being purposely withheld for big oil profits...

there is enough wealth for everyone to be in the upper middle class. if someone can afford to blow up the cities that are full and build empty cities for no one, then I believe there can be a paradigm shift...

this 'energy grab' has been the cause of wars, suffering, poverty,... for too long. it has allowed the gap between rich and poor to expand beyond morality. how many $billions would one need to understand they are hoarders?!

Skepticus_Rex
not rated yet Jul 03, 2014
the solar panel market was,is and more than likely will be subjected to the wealthhoarders greed. prices are purposely rigged: http://www.slate....obs.html maybe a few obstacles but, as you can see, there are actually a plethora of innovations being purposely withheld for big oil profits...

there is enough wealth for everyone to be in the upper middle class. if someone can afford to blow up the cities that are full and build empty cities for no one, then I believe there can be a paradigm shift...

this 'energy grab' has been the cause of wars, suffering, poverty,... for too long. it has allowed the gap between rich and poor to expand beyond morality. how many $billions would one need to understand they are hoarders?!


Can you ever cut the conspiracist claptrap? Humans have warred before 'energy grabs.' They would war even if went back to living in caves.
strangedays
3 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2014
Skepticus
By the way, if you are in Germany, is the following still the case? [\q]

I am not in Germany - I am in the U.S. - which is why I have such cheap electricity rates - and the economics of solar will not kick in for me as early as they will for others. I believe that Germany is certainly experiencing some adjustment pains - as the chose to go pedal to the metal. But they also are blazing the trail for us. Here is a neat article about one region of Germany - http://cleantechn...tricity/

The solar industry is definitely going to experience ups and downs - it is a young industry - technology is changing fast - lots of shakedowns - but the trend is unstoppable.
Kalopin
1 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2014
wonder what the first conflict was about?-power! it is all a conspiracy and within this is many more conspiracies! you all have been conspired against from the start. this goes as far back as 'living in caves'. the same wars being fought today are from the same conflicts for control...

the attempts at civilization will always eventually find catastrophe due to the selfish, collective psychopathic behavior of the human mind. as the 'frog in the hot water', 'unable to see the forest for the trees', the greed will be the demise...

1890-first regenerative braking systems on trains, 1891- Tesla demonstrates wireless transfer, 1908- first electric car with regenerative braking: http://history-of...ive.html [fastfoward] 1967-AMC electric car-conspired against, 1997- G.M. EV1-conspired against,...
regenerative braking was purposely done away with for dynamic braking on trains, trolleys and subways to make more profit.lookitup!! ;-]
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2014
If 40% of the stations are being infilled with data from other stations, and if NOAA really did add heat to our time and added cold to past time, that is a real problem that needs addressing before exaggerating. Everything the Dems do reduces the middle class and makes them poorer. How do they not want that class diminished?


That is a real big IF isn't it Skepticus. Why don't you provide the support for the assertion that NOAA is engaged in this huge conspiracy - and that every other country in the world is complicit, and that every major science organization is complicit.

Wow - you critique kaolopin for being a conspiracy theorist.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 03, 2014
If 40% of the stations are being infilled with data from other stations, and if NOAA really did add heat to our time and added cold to past time, that is a real problem that needs addressing before exaggerating. ..........

Err no it isn't - as there are other global temp indexes besides Noaa's.

http://ourchangin...cked.png

And all show the same thing.
You cite a denialist's red herring.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
Yeah, we get it - you're too stupid to understand the science... blah...blah...blah.. stupidity.
--supamark23
Tell me "genius", if everything the AGW Cult wants, is done, would that stop the glaciers and ice-sheets from melting?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
Yeah, we get it - you're too stupid to understand the science... blah...blah...blah.. stupidity.
--supamark23
Tell me "genius", if everything the AGW Cult wants, is done, would that stop the glaciers and ice-sheets from melting?

There is an article about how kudzu is spewing carbon into the atm.
Kudzu was imported into the US by the govt to prevent soil erosion in the 1930s.
Asian carp were imported to fix...something now they are everywhere.
Yet we are to believe that AGWite experts are omnipotent and the planet must trust them to save us? The CLIMATE MODEL can foresee all contingencies and unintended consequences?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
Trust the 'experts'?
"It's true that a fish farmer was the first to bring three species of Asian carp into the U.S., but from there, the carp ended up in the hands of government agencies that spawned them in research ponds, stocked them in sewage lagoons as an alternative to chemicals and experimented with canning bighead as a cheaper substitute for tuna.

Heads of some of the state and federal agencies that raised the carp admit that they were lax in the 1970s and early 1980s, an era when no one was terribly concerned about invasive species, and that the fish are as likely to have escaped from government ponds as those of fish farmers."
http://www.freep....s-escape
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
So Rygg - recently you were telling about how wonderful the salmon farming was in Scotland - I did some research on that and found that the Scottish Salmon streams are heavily regulated by the government. So do you like the socialists or not?
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2014
Trust the 'experts'?
"It's true that a fish farmer was the first to bring three species of Asian carp into the U.S., but from there, the carp ended up in the hands of government agencies that spawned them in research ponds, stocked them in sewage lagoons as an alternative to chemicals and experimented with canning bighead as a cheaper substitute for tuna.

Heads of some of the state and federal agencies that raised the carp admit that they were lax in the 1970s and early 1980s, an era when no one was terribly concerned about invasive species, and that the fish are as likely to have escaped from government ponds as those of fish farmers."
http://www.freep....s-escape


You didn't even read the link you gave about Kuduz.
http://www.atlant...kid.aspx
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2014
So Rygg - recently you were telling about how wonderful the salmon farming was in Scotland - I did some research on that and found that the Scottish Salmon streams are heavily regulated by the government. So do you like the socialists or not?

I said nothing about salmon farming in Scotland, until now:
" Fishing rights are private. It is not the fish but the right to fish for them that is owned
Salmon fishing rights are heritable titles, which may be held with or separate from the land, and carry with them the subsidiary right to fish for trout and other freshwater fish. This right must not be exercised in a way that will interfere with the rights of the riparian owner. Where the right is held separate from the land, the proprietor of the right has an implied right of access for the purpose of exercising his right to fish for salmon"
http://www.scotla...519/8903
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2014
This is not regulation. It is an example of the govt doing it's job, protecting property rights.

Kalopin
5 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2014
logical changes must be made to stop polluting...
there are many simple solutions that just need backing...
is it funny that the planet has too much CO2?
yes, natural disasters can have similar effect-if this is an excuse, then frack it!
...and drink the water...;-]

it may be comical [to the point of sadness] that something with such importance has become another little game of finger pointing. the design sets stage for such nonsense, as if there were really an 'us and them' and never realizing the 'we' aspect...:-]]]]]]]

IF WE CAN promote innovation and invention for renewables and mechanisms to clean the existing mess, bringing better attitudes and morale, then maybe WE could live more like the Jetsons, less like the Flintstones...
wishingwell! ;-]
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2014
is it funny that the planet has too much CO2?

What is the correct amount of CO2?
What is the basis of this value?
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2014
If 40% of the stations are being infilled with data from other stations, and if NOAA really did add heat to our time and added cold to past time, that is a real problem that needs addressing before exaggerating. Everything the Dems do reduces the middle class and makes them poorer. How do they not want that class diminished?


That is a real big IF isn't it Skepticus. Why don't you provide the support for the assertion that NOAA is engaged in this huge conspiracy - and that every other country in the world is complicit, and that every major science organization is complicit.

Wow - you critique kaolopin for being a conspiracy theorist.

Above, I linked the blog article written by Judith Curry (formerly part of the "consensus"). Read the article, then obtain the data from the stations. There really are a whole lot of 'E' markers there (meaning "Estimated"), and I think it is funny that defunct stations still are producing data. That is a real problem with the data.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2014
...is it funny that the planet has too much CO2?...


Earth has 0.04 % CO2. Now, Venus? Venus has too much CO2. And, the beauty of it is that Earth's atmosphere never will reach the levels of the atmosphere of Venus (96.5% at over 90 times the atmospheric density of Earth; even Venus has more N2 than does Earth!), no matter what we do. Several times in the history of the world CO2 has risen to levels far in excess of what we see now. In fact, Corals arose in the seas during a time of CO2 levels in the 1000s ppm. Mankind isn't going to be able to get the CO2 levels up as high as in those times (but volcanism and tectonics can) so we need to stop fearmongering over it.

And, in the long run, CO2 may well save humanity a billion years from now. If there is too little, the seas will boil off the earth and man will have ceased to exist long before.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2014
...modeling shows that within the next billion years, increased evaporation rates and future chemical reactions with rainwater will draw more and more carbon dioxide from the Earth's atmosphere. The falling levels of carbon dioxide will lead to the extinction of plants and animals and Earth will become a world of microbes. At the same time, the Earth will be depleted of oxygen and will be drying out as the rising temperatures lead to the evaporation of the oceans.


http://news.disco...0702.htm

Make sure CO2 levels are high enough to help combat that problem and human life potentially could be given more time. The alternative is to remove N2 from the atmosphere, which is a lot harder to do than pump CO2 into the atmosphere.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2014
From the original of the above story I linked, at the Royal Astronomical Society website:

https://www.ras.o...he-world
strangedays
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
Ryggy

I said nothing about salmon farming in Scotland, until now:


Yes you did - on a different thread - a while back. You held up Sottish Salmon fishing as an example of good land stewardship - by independent land owners. In fact - Scottish salmon fishing is heavily regulated by the government. Do you like socialism, or not - make up your mind.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2014
Yes you did - on a different thread - a while back.

No, I did not.
As noted by the Scottish govt, salmon fishing is NOT heavily regulated by the govt.
The govt protects owners rights to fish for salmon. This is not regulation or socialism, but a legitimate function of a govt, protection of private property rights.
JohnGee
5 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2014
Yeah, in the real world that's called regulation.
strangedays
5 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2014
No, I did not.


Yes you did - it was a while back - in a discussion about property rights. You held up the Scottish salmon industry as a model of private property rights.

Well - yes - the Scottish government is heavily involved in the Scottish salmon fishing situation.

http://www.flyfis...slaw.htm

http://www.herald...22833036

Oooops - looks like Ryggy supports socialism.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2014
"Unlike other countries (including England and Wales) Scotland has no State licencing system for fishing. It is however a criminal offence to fish for salmon without legal right or written permission"
http://www.flyfis...slaw.htm
What regulation?
No state license. What regulation?
Socialism is state CONTROL of private property. This is state PROTECTION of private property.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2014
Yeah, in the real world that's called regulation.


Socialists can't differentiate laws that protect private property from laws that control private property?
Bastiat discusses this quite well in The Law. Look it up.
Kalopin
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2014
is it funny that the planet has too much CO2?

What is the correct amount of CO2?
What is the basis of this value?


http://phys.org/n...562.html
"last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report", "...during the middle Miocene...,...CO2 levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today,...globally temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, a huge amount...".
"...dramatic rise in sea level is associated with carbon dioxide levels..."!

thus causing an imbalance, shifting weight. no ice at the poles can cause electromagnetic imbalance producing a pole shift, causing an extinction level event.

yea, what a prediction Skepticus- "Earth dead in 2.8 billion years"! how are these determined legit? anyone can predict such nonsense. surely you realize how many variables, intracacies, factors and events can change on such a scale? maybe let's focus on what can be done now?

so, change!;-]
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2014

is it funny that the planet has too much CO2?


What is the correct amount of CO2?
What is the basis of this value?


What is correct is precisely what the planet is in balance with before mankind skewed that balance my dear troll.

You know (no you don't do you) ..... All things in the natural world are finely balanced. The Earth has existed for millions of years (in it's present geological form) - being swung into and out off balance re solar insolation and natural feed-backs such as albedo and GHG concentrations (sink/source). There we were ~150 years ago nicely in balance at 280ppm CO2.
Then man started burning fossil. CO2 concentrations have duly increased by 40%...... result - the planet is now out of balance (because of the unarguable heat-retarding properties of CO2) .... very probably disastrously so.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2014
...
thus causing an imbalance, shifting weight. no ice at the poles can cause electromagnetic imbalance producing a pole shift, causing an extinction level event.

yea, what a prediction Skepticus- "Earth dead in 2.8 billion years"! how are these determined legit? anyone can predict such nonsense. surely you realize how many variables, intracacies, factors and events can change on such a scale? maybe let's focus on what can be done now?


Pole-shift extinction if it happens? Consider the following:
http://www.nasa.g...sal.html

Hey, a computer model is a computer model. You can program in parameters using observational data and let the computer run with it. So, you reject this computer model but accept fully the hypothesis based on other computer models that form the basis of today's climate science, etc. Interesting. :-)

But, the sun is getting brighter and rocks and the sea absorb CO2. Put these together, along with other data, and...
Kalopin
2 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2014
may need to do something with all the anthropogenic magnetic fields 'electro-smog'

should say pole reversal, but probably just disorient animal behavior http://www.nwf.or...ion.aspx "the aerospace industry is already looking into navigational systems that would do something similar..."

there are so many factors that affect Earth's climate it is a challenge to understand, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored and taken advantage of;
passed down through time is a lesson of responsibility currently being intentionally disregarded

to refuse to take notice of, or acknowledge these factors would be reckless, rash, careless, thoughtless, foolhardy, foolish, impetuous, impulsive, devil-may-care, deliquent, negligent, hair-brained,...[add synonyms here] ;-]]]]]]]

climate science is NOT based on computer models alone! there is physical evidence occurring all around.information has been recorded in ice cores,...etc
Skepticus_Rex
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2014
Electro-smog needing something done? Crank. Yes, lots of factors; many not considered.

Yes, indeed it's been warming since the Little Ice Age. It also has been happening about every 1,000 years or so for some time. There is a growing amount of proxy climate data on both hemispheres that shows similar warming a 1000 years ago. But, recently, it's been virtually a flatline during the last nearly 15 years. Only time will tell (about another 15 years or so) and actions taken before that time are a waste of time, economies, and people.

There are also ice cores (such as GISP2) that have shown that same approximate 1000-year cycle I mentioned. If it weren't for Mann suppressing certain data and inserting other data upside down (as well as CRU fudge factors, IPCC exaggeration factors and misprinted data getting through incestual peer-review, infilled data, data from defunct stations, and estimated data offered as raw data by the NOAA, and other such anomalies), more people might notice.
Skepticus_Rex
not rated yet Jul 06, 2014
@Kalopin,

Here is a link to the chart for GISP2 ice core data (if the link works, that is):

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cL4XG_gwAcs/T6fXFBPfi7I/AAAAAAAAIsM/_JHsULNXZps/s1600/GISP2+TemperatureSince10700+BP+with+CO2+from+EPICA+DomeC.gif
Kalopin
1 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2014
http://www.skepti...hp?r=337 this yours?why build an entire campaign to try and keep levels below 350ppm? http://350.org/
[btw- the planet just past 400ppm couple months ago;-]

;-]]]]I've told them to change it to 'global extremes' instead of 'climate change' or 'global warming' which are misleading... it really is uncharted with many extremists ideas. it would seem-maybe just stop the extracting, burning, polluting,...?;-]

when you take the step back; view this 'civilization' from another perspective, what is believed 'modern' is really quite primitive...

hey, I'm with you, I have hope the data means little.
does that change oil depletion? will it effect energy conflict? will it open leaders eyes to new insight, innovation, invention, ideas,...?
believing will not make it disappear...
obviously- there needs to be a better way to generate electricity for general consumption-so- what is the holdback? $?mmm ;-]]]]]]]!
Kalopin
2 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2014
knowing that meteor impacts have such a cooling effect on Earth's climate may make one tend to believe it would be quite simple to lower global temperatures. knowing excessive convection and eruptions can have such a warming effect may give similar outlook at raising global temperatures...

in fact it IS rather easy to affect change by use of technology. these devices can be easily imagined and a couple already exist- [haarp- http://www.haarp.net/ ]
this was also ancient technology!
[but good control over it?]
...and we both know what caused 'the little ice age'! ;-]
"1811 A Comet and A Quake" !
Skepticus_Rex
2.8 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2014
None of that stuff you linked is mine. I don't advocate holding CO2 to below a certain level. I'm thinking more long term, as in terms of trying to help preserve the species for more than a billion years. I think we need to double it.

The link I posted was useful because it has the ~1000-year cycle (that I mentioned) marked, but it does come from an ice core. We need to transition slowly into newer technologies. Go too fast and worse will come. For instance, if we were to stop use of all carbon-based fuels tomorrow the aerosols in the atmosphere would be washed out in days, causing us to lose the atmospheric aerosols that help keep the environment cooler. I need not detail the result of that.

HAARP isn't a weather control apparatus, contra the view of the conspiracists. No ancient people had like technology. That's all in the imaginations of cranks who can't read ancient inscriptions.

The little ice age was not caused by an 1811 anything. The LIA began in the early 14th century.
Kalopin
3 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2014
I guess more refer to 1811-1817 as the "mini ice age": http://forums.kff...238.html

it has been blamed on the eruptions [Tambora, Vesuvius...], but the eruptions were from the close passing of C/1811 F1: http://adsabs.har....11.473V "new evidence for the eruptive origin of comets and meteoric matter"

the planet is imbalanced. too much co2 is not the best way to maintain habitable temperatures, water vapour will work without runaway greenhouse.
climate science: http://physics.st...abitable
"...there are plenty of data that falsify the alarming predictions..." if you're skeptical, but shouldn't we try to keep the atmosphere cleaner?
you may want to add your belief as an answer? ;-]
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2014
All things in the natural world are finely balanced.

Since when?
There is no balance, only oscillations, constant change.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
All things in the natural world are finely balanced.

Since when?
There is no balance, only oscillations, constant change.

ryggy...

Of course it is. Obviously BALANCED between oscillations. That is precisely what I'm saying. The oscillations are caused by solar constant and CO2 sink/source/albedo.
We've buggered up the balance that existed in that natural cycle.
FFS
Kalopin
3 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2014
All things in the natural world are finely balanced.

Since when?
There is no balance, only oscillations, constant change.


any extreme 'oscillation' would be an imbalance. as there must be constant change, this change need not be detrimental to life.

I guess 'natural world' meaning habitable. any planet within the 'goldilocks zone' must keep a certain balance to maintain life. too much or not enough and no life.

technology will allow migration to other planets, but before another catastrophe?: http://blog.chron...thought/ will the balance for life last another 1.5 billion years?
another distant prediction! ;-]
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
What is correct is precisely what the planet is in balance with before mankind skewed that balance my dear troll.

So, tell us runrig, are the following also unnatural:
Lumber from trees for making homes, etc.
Clearing land for food crops.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
What is correct is precisely what the planet is in balance with before mankind skewed that balance my dear troll.

So, tell us runrig, are the following also unnatural:
Lumber from trees for making homes, etc.
Clearing land for food crops.


No, there are plenty of natural destroyers of trees (disease, fire).
What is unnatural is stuff humans do that does not occur by any other means on Earth..... and that is not naturally reversed as a feed-back when the disturbing oscillation recycles back. CO2 is NOT naturally increased by ~40% within 150 years, other than catastrophic volcanism, Of which we need to go back millions of years to find evidence of.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
What is unnatural is stuff humans do that does not occur by any other means on Earth....

How can this be un-natural when humans are a part of nature?
The oscillations are caused by solar constant and CO2 sink/source/albedo.
We've buggered up the balance that existed in that natural cycle.


How do you know ALL perturbations? Have you mapped all regions of space that the solar system passes through? How about influences from gamma ray bursts, black holes, dark matter, solar flares, .....
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
"
Flares from the sun change the rate of radioactive decay of elements on Earth

Sounds generated deep inside the Sun cause the Earth to shake and vibrate in sympathy. They have found that Earth's magnetic field, atmosphere and terrestrial systems, all take part in this cosmic sing-along

"Space weather" causes "spacequakes" in Earth's geomagnetic field

There is even some evidence that can solar activity cause earthquakes and volcanic eruptions on Earth
"
http://www.washin...ate.html
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2014
What is unnatural is stuff humans do that does not occur by any other means on Earth....

How can this be un-natural when humans are a part of nature?
The oscillations are caused by solar constant and CO2 sink/source/albedo.
We've buggered up the balance that existed in that natural cycle.


How do you know ALL perturbations? Have you mapped all regions of space that the solar system passes through? How about influences from gamma ray bursts, black holes, dark matter, solar flares, .....

I am now in the realms mr Twain talked about.
You cannot at the same time argue that current warming is natural and has happened before and also say that man's influence is natural. To anybody with the merest hint of reason, plainly man has not had a natural influence on Earth. NATURE does NOT reason - it acts to stimuli and does not decide to ignore them. FFS.
Black holes/ dark matter my arse. Desperation or what?
GHG physics is causing AGW, empirical not fantasy physics
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
You cannot at the same time argue that current warming is natural and has happened before and also say that man's influence is natural.


Yes, I can when humans are part of nature.

It's the AGWites that make the distinction that humans are not a part of nature.
Why?
At first I was thinking hubris, but then it occurs to me the AGWites and their fellow travelers suffer from an inferiority complex. They can't accept they are in and a part of nature subject to nature's forces and know there is very little they can do to stop nature.
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2014
"
Flares from the sun change the rate of radioactive decay of elements on Earth

Sounds generated deep inside the Sun cause the Earth to shake and vibrate in sympathy. They have found that Earth's magnetic field, atmosphere and terrestrial systems, all take part in this cosmic sing-along

"Space weather" causes "spacequakes" in Earth's geomagnetic field

There is even some evidence that can solar activity cause earthquakes and volcanic eruptions on Earth
"
http://www.washin...ate.html


You link to a conspiracy site that attracts the EU nutters and even worse the paranoids calling for a violent overthrow of the government. Do you expect to have any credibility?

There is no evidence solar activity can cause earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. That is a corruption of the actual research.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
"Many have wondered whether solar activity can be linked to earthquakes, but a recent study found no direct relationship between the two.

Scientists assembled historical records of the Sun's interaction with Earth, looking at sunspots, solar wind, and magnetic storms. They then compared these with historical records of earthquake occurrence. They found no significant pattern between solar activity and more or larger earthquakes. There is no demonstrated way to use space data to predict future earthquakes."

"Can We Predict Earthquakes?

So far, the answer is no. Despite frequent claims to the contrary, no reliable short-term earthquake prediction method has ever been developed."
http://www.usgs.g...hquakes/
Sounds like more research will be done.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
"This paper studies the relationship between solar activity and big earthquakes (Ms≥8) that occurred in China and western Mongolia. It is discovered that the occurrence dates of most of the big earthquakes in and near faults with west-east strike are close to the maximum years of sunspot numbers, whereas dates of some big earthquakes which are not in such faults are not close to the maximum years. We consider that it is possibly because of the appearance of many magnetic storms in the maximum years of solar activity. The magnetic storms result in anomalies of geomagnetic field and then produce eddy current in the faults gestating earthquake with near west-east strike. Perhaps the gestated big earthquakes occur easily since the eddy current heats the rocks in the faults and therefore decreases the shear resistant intensity and the static friction limit of the rocks."
http://link.sprin...03yw0103
howhot2
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2014
I support @Vietvet. All your claimed material on this solar earthquake thing is suspect @R2. And you claim AGW is a radical theory? Haha.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2014
I support @Vietvet. All your claimed material on this solar earthquake thing is suspect @R2. And you claim AGW is a radical theory? Haha.
I think I know where you got your info from, Ryggy...
the only problem is, correlation is NOT causation... otherwise we should be trying to get more people to fall down stairs and die in order to create more funding for science and NASA...
http://tylervigen...n?id=983

or maybe you think we should convince people to suicide by hanging, strangulation and/or suffocation so that we can get the gov't to spend more on science? http://www.tylerv...?id=1597

sorry commie-Ryggy
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2014
" 38 journalism groups, led by the Society of Professional Journalists, complained to the Obama White House about numerous offenses that were summed up as the "politically-driven suppression of news."

[A]s a result, they wrote, Obama only has himself to blame for the current cynicism of his administration. "You need look no further than your own administration for a major source of that frustration – politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies. We call on you to take a stand to stop the spin and let the sunshine in," wrote David Cuillier, president of SPJ."
http://www.breitb...ssion-of
Skepticus_Rex
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2014
I guess more refer to 1811-1817 as the "mini ice age": http://forums.kff...238.html
"...there are plenty of data that falsify the alarming predictions..." if you're skeptical, but shouldn't we try to keep the atmosphere cleaner?
you may want to add your belief as an answer? ;-]

Uh, no. "More do not refer to 1811-1817 as the mini ice age. See, for example:
http://www.scienc...1509.htm

Yes, we should try to keep the atmosphere cleaner but CO2 isn't part of that. You keep saying things about too much CO2. How much is too much? Why? Earth in the past had many times the amounts we see today. We aren't adding anything that wasn't already there before.

In other threads I have posted the parameters for an experiment involving various levels of CO2 that anybody can do. Why not look up that thread and try the experiment for yourself. You will see what doubling of CO2 really will do. Try it and see.