DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:obviously, neither of you own property near the coast. Residential insurance for coastal homes on or near the Atlantic and the Gulf is up by over 400% in the past 6 years, and in some cases cannot be renewed at any cost for flood coverage.

Well, why not? My family owns an apartment and a house in Sochi and also the cottage in Novorossiysk near the coast. Despite the fact that I have repeatedly seen tornadoes in the sea, it was never a cause for panic locals.

Add: But, of course, I do not deny that there is a big difference in strength of natural disaster on the Black Sea and the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean.

Well, if there is an economic price to pay, then we should all go back to buying American made products at the higher prices that support newer factories and provide better jobs…two birds with one stone…(yes I understand that industry is less to blame than say…power generation, but when China builds a new plant to provide energy to its industry, do you think the climate will be a concern?)

But alas…I see no movement on this kind of thing from our “leaders”, and I doubt most dumb ass cheapskate consumers would see any benefit in doing so. (still can’t see the economic benefits)

Yea right, keep bashing the skeptics, meanwhile hiding the fact that this is going to be a hard sell to the public in general, including everyone that believes.

But we all need scapegoats…right.

Will Robinson wrote:A discussion they steer from the bully pulpit and you are out there chanting their mantra like brainwashed cultist.

TIL: The overwhelming scientific community are brainwashed cultists.

You are such a moron, confusing skepticism for stubbornness. Though I can relate because I used to think global warming was BS too.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:A discussion they steer from the bully pulpit and you are out there chanting their mantra like brainwashed cultist.

TIL: The overwhelming scientific community are brainwashed cultists.

You are such a moron, confusing skepticism for stubbornness. Though I can relate because I used to think global warming was BS too.

Since when is Al Gore and the other power hungry pimps "the overwhelming scientific community"?!?

Either you are truly in need of some remedial reading and english courses or worse.
Did you deliberately omit the subject of the comments you quoted because you are trying to be as dishonest as possible!?

It seems pretty damn clear I was drawing a distinction between scientists who could possibly find a solution and eco-pimps who have inserted themselves into the authority to run their scams under the flag of scientific consensus. You had to remove that distinction so you could use your only tool....constantly misrepresenting the comments so you can then tear down your strawman.

But hey! there are no losers here, you spelled moron correctly so somewhere around here I'm sure we can dig up a gold star for you to pin on your sweater to wear home and show your Mommy!

Will Robinson wrote:pimps

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Will Robinson wrote:I was drawing a distinction between scientists who could possibly find a solution and eco-pimps who have inserted themselves into the authority to run their scams under the flag of scientific consensus.

Name one of these "scams."

Top Gun wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:pimps

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yes it does.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I was drawing a distinction between scientists who could possibly find a solution and eco-pimps who have inserted themselves into the authority to run their scams under the flag of scientific consensus.

Name one of these "scams."

I already have. Basically all the combinations of exemptions for under developed countries (many who are also producing lots of pollution) and the redistribution of wealth, either by taxation or causing production to be reduced in non exempt countries.

Al Gores carbon credit brokerage scheme was a particularly pimp-like move.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I was drawing a distinction between scientists who could possibly find a solution and eco-pimps who have inserted themselves into the authority to run their scams under the flag of scientific consensus.

Name one of these "scams."

Solyndra

now, here's a novel solution(from our friends in North Carolina).....simply make rising sea levels illegal! Sheesh!
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/n ... tes-042314

Will Robinson wrote:Al Gores carbon credit brokerage scheme was a particularly pimp-like move.

There is that word again.

Carbon credits work when countries actively participate. I provided the proof months ago in another thread, but obviously you can can't be swayed by data, only emotion, so I'm not going to bother digging it up again.

woodchip wrote:Solyndra

You are off-topic, but I will answer anyway. Yes, Solyndra was some dogshit. However, this exception does not change the fact the overwhelming amount of federal investments in alt-energy have been successful and Solyndra does nothing to change the viability and value of solar.


So that's it? That's all any of you have? Carbon Credits and Solyndra? How uninspiring.

Vision, you are citing a hypothetical and holding it out as empirical evidence.

In simple terms: you haven't proven anything. Further. The fact that you allude to people who won't cooperate with it supports my assertion that it isn't viable.

However if Gore is drawing a paycheck or other compensation for his brokering the trading of credits then the pimp label fits him like fluffy velvet fedora....

That word again.

vision wrote:That word again.

He keeps on pimpin', I keep on calling him out on it and you apparently keep on putting yourself out there for his benefit....

Will Robinson wrote:He keeps on pimpin', I keep on calling him out on it and you apparently keep on putting yourself out there for his benefit....

Wait, are somehow insulating that I follow Al Gore? A guy I never voted who made a movie I've never seen?

No, I think he was somehow insinuating that you are a working girl.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:No, I think he was somehow insinuating that you are a working girl.

Amazing vision missed the reference. Guess he was too busy hiking his skirts to notice.

woodchip wrote:Guess he was too busy hiking his skirts to notice.

Trying to keep it dry in light of rising sea levels.

BTW vision, for my own edification, can you link a couple of climate models showing the components that drive the results?

woodchip wrote:BTW vision, for my own edification, can you link a couple of climate models showing the components that drive the results?

Sure! I'll do even better. Here is a comparison of different climate models. Each of the comparisons links to the source, and usually the raw data as well. You can use that data and combine them to make your own model! Woo hoo! Have fun with that.

Here Woody, Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c4XPVPJ ... 5nP2xzFTWQ
This will give a little more data to your side. (not being sarcastic)

That's just more fodder for the already unenlightened tea party Duper.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... oll-finds/

Yeah, that bastion of intellect Marco Rubio just stated that he doesn't "believe humanity can affect global climate," or something to that effect. And meanwhile, this happens:

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environm ... ng-n103221

What was that about the Antarctic growing, again?

I doubt somehow that you bothered watching the vid.
Aw well.
It has nothing to do with any political group.
TG, that issue is actually addressed well in the vid.

Duper wrote:I doubt somehow that you bothered watching the vid.

well, I did.

Aw well.

not much was missed, for anyone who's heard the same old 'economic' argument to justify maintaining ignorance, or worse, engendering NO ACTION because 'we can't be sure, there is disagreement, yadda, yadda'.

It has nothing to do with any political group.

you're joking, right? This yahoo is a very active member of one political axis(right), and isn't even remarkably out of the mainstream.

TG, that issue is actually addressed well in the vid.

well, if you want to call tossing bull feces into the mix, I guess it was 'addressed'......yeesh!

Top Gun wrote:Yeah, that bastion of intellect Marco Rubio just stated that he doesn't "believe humanity can affect global climate," or something to that effect. And meanwhile, this happens:

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environm ... ng-n103221

What was that about the Antarctic growing, again?

If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that humanity needs a massive shock like this to change.

Ferno wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Yeah, that bastion of intellect Marco Rubio just stated that he doesn't "believe humanity can affect global climate," or something to that effect. And meanwhile, this happens:

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environm ... ng-n103221

What was that about the Antarctic growing, again?

If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that humanity needs a massive shock like this to change.

Once again ferno you jump on something without looking a bit on your own. From this link"

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewc ... lrespub%22

Scroll down to S6 map and you will notice the west antarctic ice sheet (wais) has been disappearing since 15000 years ago. If you will look at other graphs you will see the wais had much less volume 1 million years ago. I suggest you learn terms like grounding line, ice shelves and what happens when ice shelves extend too far from their grounding line. Ice shelves are already floating in the ocean and thus will not contribute to increase sea levels (no more than the ice cubes in a glass of water will increase height of water in the glass when the ice melts.

It is the land based glaciers that feed the ice sheets that when they melt, sea levels will increase. How much and how fast? It is all speculation right now. From TG link:

"Some scenarios suggest that the glacier could last more than a millennium longer, but the most likely scenarios predict that rapid collapse would occur somewhere between 200 and 500 years from now."

Nobody knows at this juncture and since the wais has been slowly disappearing for a long time, to blame it on man made causes is still laughable at best.

Top Gun wrote:

What was that about the Antarctic growing, again?

TG do try and read a bit better. I said the Arctic not the Antarctic

woodchip wrote:TG do try and read a bit better. I said the Arctic not the Antarctic

So it's up by 50 percent this year. It's still the sixth lowest amount of ice on record and most of the melting has happened in the last seven years.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/robertbrown/2 ... appearing/

Now the Antarctic glaciers melting is a lot bigger issue. THAT ice is sitting on land. When it eventually melts into the sea, the sea level rise will be far more dramatic. Bye, bye Noo Yawk and most of Florida.

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/may/nasa ... stoppable/

woodchip wrote:

Top Gun wrote:

What was that about the Antarctic growing, again?

TG do try and read a bit better. I said the Arctic not the Antarctic

if so, you have no clue(or, more in line with your usual modus operandi, are lying and know it). The arctic may have seen a short term gain, but it was from a near-disappearance of Artic Ice over the past 20 years.

and, as for actually using government to drive energy efficiency.....nah, we'd rather play political football over an unneeded project that would create the same number of jobs as building a shopping mall:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... nergy-bill

Yea, let’s just keep shipping oil the safe way…you know…by rail and ship.

Oh, pipelines are any safer?

Spidey wrote:Yea, let’s just keep shipping oil the safe way…you know…by rail and ship.

it isn't as if that pipeline would keep one drop off rail or ship. It was designed to tap a currently untransported output. Got any other strawmen?

Right, because when they finally do start shipping that oil, it will be by air….

with any luck, we're within 25 years of not shipping all that much oil anyplace. We had better hope so, at least.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Top Gun wrote:

What was that about the Antarctic growing, again?

TG do try and read a bit better. I said the Arctic not the Antarctic

if so, you have no clue(or, more in line with your usual modus operandi, are lying and know it). The arctic may have seen a short term gain, but it was from a near-disappearance of Artic Ice over the past 20 years.

How can I be lying when I never disputed the arctic ice is at a all time low (except it is no longer at a all time low now is it)? If at any time you warmers saw a 50% decrease you would be wetting yourselves with angst.

Now lets look at why this whole thing smells. When the warmer scientists actively try to prevent skeptical scientists from being published or go after journals that do publish the skeptics papers...you know something ain't quite right:

1) "When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann "consensus," Jones demanded that the journal "rid itself of this troublesome editor," and Mann advised that "we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers."

2) "When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the "consensus" reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley ("one of the world's foremost experts on climate change") suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to "get him ousted."

3) "When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. Mann, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

4) "In an echo of the infamous "Climategate" scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world's top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as "harmful"...
The five contributing scientists, from America and Sweden, submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters, one of the most highly regarded journals, at the end of last year but were told in February that it had been rejected.

A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process wrote that he strongly advised against publishing it because it was "less than helpful".

The unnamed scientist concluded: "Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of 'errors' and worse from the climate sceptics media side."

In the end, have a closed door policy on climate warming is not helpful and is down right dangerous. Keep drinking the kool-aid

Spidey wrote:Right, because when they finally do start shipping that oil, it will be by air….

I see they're trying that method too. Shoot it into the air and hope it flies to the right location. Epic fail. Tsk, tsk. Oil still falls to the ground and covers everything. I've noticed that they STILL don't know how to respond QUICKLY and shut things off when sh*t happens.

[youtube]pKCkgwGT9Ow[/youtube]

Two thoughts come to mind.
One, did anyone else see that picture of Washington under water and think 'Hey, this global warming stuff has promise!'

And just how much water, be it in any state, is there in, on, or surrounding, the earth, and how has that varied over the history of the planet?

Will Robinson wrote:Two thoughts come to mind.
One, did anyone else see that picture of Washington under water and think 'Hey, this global warming stuff has promise!'

And just how much water, be it in any state, is there in, on, or surrounding, the earth, and how has that varied over the history of the planet?

it has varied a bit, I'd suspect, but it is the STATE that is important.