GCC: California cap-and-trade spending doubles to $1.4 billion in 2018; xEV rebates, affordable housing, wildfire preven

[LeftieBiker]

You are either misreading my post, or somehow missed the fact that the sudden onset of the extreme weather associated with AGW had been predicted by most organizations looking into it - but not for roughly another decade. Again (and for the last time) there were some scientists who got it right, but they were ignored, ridiculed, or self-censored themselves. Once the actual, immediate trend became clear there was plenty of "We knew this was going to happen, but really didn't think it would be this soon." That was largely because the prediction models tended to be programmed with...optimistic...data about both actual conditions at the time, and rosy projections about oil consumption declining and mitigation efforts getting underway worldwide. Many of those models DID have this outcome as the "worst case scenario" but people like to look at the middle range of possible outcomes, not the extremes. Now why don't you argue with someone who actually believes something substantially different from you...?

The last decade of climate change has been an excellent illustration of the adage "The Devil is in the details."

 

[Oilpan4]

AGW was supposed to have destroyed the world by now.
So when they say exactly the same thing that didn't happen before is going to happen again at a later date makes dooms day global warming is a snake handling religion at best.
2030 will come and go an it will be another failed dooms day AGW cult prediction.

I never said man's activities don't effect the planet or that the climate does not change.

I can tell you are having a very difficult time with the muller report and the crash and burn of the new green deal. I mean 57 to 0 Hahahahahha this deal was so bad even senate dems were too embarrassed to vote for it.

 

[Oilpan4]

You are either misreading my post, or somehow missed the fact that the sudden onset of the extreme weather associated with AGW had been predicted by most organizations looking into it - but not for roughly another decade. Again (and for the last time) there were some scientists who got it right, but they were ignored, ridiculed, or self-censored themselves. Once the actual, immediate trend became clear there was plenty of "We knew this was going to happen, but really didn't think it would be this soon." That was largely because the prediction models tended to be programmed with...optimistic...data about both actual conditions at the time, and rosy projections about oil consumption declining and mitigation efforts getting underway worldwide. Many of those models DID have this outcome as the "worst case scenario" but people like to look at the middle range of possible outcomes, not the extremes. Now why don't you argue with someone who actually believes something substantially different from you...?

The last decade of climate change has been an excellent illustration of the adage "The Devil is in the details."

Any one who doesnt believe the world is about to end in a few years is a denyer and science illiterate.

 

[WetEV]

Any one who doesnt believe the world is about to end in a few years is a denyer and science illiterate.

i'm "glad" to hear I'm a "denyer and science illiterate".

And I'll give you a T.

 

[WetEV]

new green deal.

GND gets a bunch of things wrong. Got a fact based alternative?

 

[WetEV]

Um, you may want to check the date on that. In climate science, prediction from10 years ago is old & unreliable speculation. This was the era, IIRC, right before the rapid acceleration that so many scientists didn't see coming.

Show references. Not to popular press, please, but to scientific journals or better yet to the IPCC's summaries.

Popular press has lots of the thing that makes flowers grow. Not to mention political spin from every direction.


Might start here:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/wg1/
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar2/wg1/
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/
And the Charney report from the 1970's
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12181/carbon-dioxide-and-climate-a-scientific-assessment

 

[SageBrush]

AGW was supposed to have destroyed the world by now.

BS

Show me where a reputable scientist said anything approaching your statement.

 

[Oilpan4]

That's the thing I can't think of any scientists who are that crazy.
The scientists arent the problem they are just doing science aside from a little funding bias.
Plus the scientists aren't the ones saying that commercial air travel needs to end, ban cars, ban meat, shut down coal and natural gas fired power, put millions of people in the dark.
That's the politicians. The politicians are the ones who took a little bit of actual science, added in a bunch of lies, mixed it all up to weaponize it to further their political agend.
If the Democrats keep pushing the new green deal that will guarantee trumps reelection even though it's already in the bag. Sorry (but not really).

My idea is the "it should be pretty obvious climate accord".
Replace coal fired base load with nuclear.
Reprocesse all the spent nuclear fuel sitting in temporary storage around the county. Because leaving all this raw spent fuel in temporary storage is completely insane.
Once the coal is replaced start replacing non combined cycle natural gas fired plants too.
Then rebuild the aging gen 2 reactor sites with gen 3+ or higher.
Bread Mox fuel with liquid metal cooled breeders to use up the thousands of tons of depleted uranium left over from the cold war and commercial enrichment.
Most importantly no boiling water reactors, no gigantic stock piles of waste fuel sitting around and no reactors in tsunami zones, for obvious reasons.
Keep electricity cheap encourage people to drive electric and use electric transportation.
Forget about cap and tax scams designed to hurt everyone who isn't rich.
But only if you are actually serious about meaningfull reduction of CO2 emissions.

 

[LeftieBiker]

And the Charney report from the 1970's

Got anything from the Forties? Seriously, having actually lived through the last 15 years, and having paid attention to what was happening with the climate, I'm not going to spend time I don't have doing research that you can then ignore or misinterpret. More storminess means more overall cloud cover. Believe it or not, as you like. Now go bother someone else, please.

 

[SageBrush]

The politicians are the ones who took a little bit of actual science, added in a bunch of lies, mixed it all up to weaponize it to further their political agenda.

More BS. Reference a national Progressive politician who comes close to your statement. Provide quotes. And while you are at it, compare their stances to that of the latest IPCC. You will find that the progressive politicians are actually timid.

Then compare the actual statements to that poop for brains president you love who says that AGW is a Chinese hoax and does what he can to prop up coal.