The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Typical "it's weather not climate when it's cold".
It doesn't really matter what it is since no one is willing to pay for fixing it.

It is weather when it is hot or cold - in one place, at any one time.

So, why did you make such a silly argument?

Are you willing to pay FAR more for ignoring climate change?

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by freebeard

This one right here. I see more of a standoff than one side prevailing. The point was that while everyone is teaching the controversy, those 'dark powers and principalities' drive the herd in the direction they prefer.

I was thinking I'd posted that video but after too much searching I think it was 4 Megaprojects That Could Reverse Climate Change | Answers With Joe. But during the search I ran across this mention of Software Defined Electricity. I posted this but didn't take it to heart.

There is no debate, here. There is data and science, and there are people who think that their denial is an argument against facts.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

It doesn't really matter. As I proved earlier no one is voluntarily going to pay to fix global warming.
So we have the numbers and that's all that matters.

I've been at it since the 1970s,so leave me out of your calculus.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

100% green energy increases power bill by $1,200 per year.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/...r-power-bills/

Yeah and 68% of people won't even pay $120 per year for green energy.
I can go "100% green energy" for about $4,000 with grid tie power.
Don't need the government to do it for me.

Anthony Watts is a shill.

When I switched to 100% renewable electricity - I saved about 4%. So, he is wrong on this, too.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

The really bad thing about the cold spell in North America is where that cold is coming from - and where it isn't right now.
It needs to freeze hard on the North Pole to compensate for the loss of ice in the summer, and if it doesn't next year will see record losses again.

Yes,the sea-ice forms from the bottom up,frozen from above,as it ejects brine.S now acts like insulation,reducing sea-ice formation.The warm water exacerbates evaporation,which exacerbates snowfall,exacerbating the insulation,in a runaway cascade effect.
Sea-ice-bottom-algae form the beginning of the entire food web,for both the Arctic and Antarctic.
As the polar seas warm,and ice cover vanishes,so goes the food chain,marine,and terrestrial species,dependent upon ice,all the way up to man.
Oceanographers are terrified at what they're witnessing,and the implications for the whole planet.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Typical "it's weather not climate when it's cold".
It doesn't really matter what it is since no one is willing to pay for fixing it.

For the Nth time,please consider more precise language than 'no one'.
I'm someone.And I've been paying since 1974.And more than willing.
(the exception proves the rule)

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I'm not going to pay for the government to screw up renewable power.

32% of people are only willing to pay $10 per month.
Let them pay it.

Actual real world 100% renewable power (likely backed up and made possible by fossile fuel) costs $100 more per month.
I bet the number willing to pay $100 is far lower than 32%.

According to a Forbes article from 2015 on average people will only accept a 5% increase on their power bill to "fix global warming".

Yeah a lot of people believe in man made climate change, but only a few believe in paying for it. Oh the irony.

Just incase the useful idiots ridiculous new green deal passes I want to insulate my self from the stupidity as much as possible.
They want additional taxes on electricity, motor fuel, home heating, water, everything. The only thing green about it is all the money the government confiscates.
My answer to that is solar panels, electric and hybrid vehicles, fire wood and coal heating, use the well I already have.

yeah,they're real losers.Build hydroelectric dam in the 1930s,which are still producing power today.A real socialist tragedy.

[freebeard]

There is no debate, here. There is data and science, and there are people who think that their denial is an argument against facts.

I follow this thread, but since all the posts are read in the same voice, it's hard for me to follow who's on who's side. If this isn't debate, what is it? Vigorous conversation? Dialectic?

I also follow Scott Adam's investigation of the subject. It's hard to point to since he tags onto the end of his regular vlog. Could you summarize his conclusion? I could.

Snagged this from today's transcript:

51:33
you need to release on the obviously bad
51:38
arguments let me tell you the arguments
51:40
that are good in terms of criticizing
51:44
climate science here's the good argument
51:47
the science is probably pretty solid not
51:51
a hundred percent in my opinion because
51:54
I can't really penetrate it so I can't
51:56
give you an independent opinion but
51:58
probably pretty science meaning that co2
52:01
raises temperatures at cetera but the
52:05
the projection models and the economics
52:09
that they that they do on top of those
52:11
should be seen as marketing not science
52:15
they use scientific thinking to make the
52:18
models but you really have to look at
52:20
the projection models as how the
52:22
scientists are trying to market their
52:25
their their beliefs the things that
52:28
they've discovered

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

100% green energy increases power bill by $1,200 per year.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/...r-power-bills/

Yeah and 68% of people won't even pay $120 per year for green energy.
I can go "100% green energy" for about $4,000 with grid tie power.
Don't need the government to do it for me.

Goods and services provided by the environment,by some calculations,have been valued at $33-trillion/year.
As fossil-fuel combustion eats into these goods and services,it's only proper that the fossil-fuel combustion industry compensate the good people of planet Earth for their loss(es).
As the cost of doing business always translates into price,depending upon the degree of insult attributed to combustion,the price of fuel should mirror losses,potentially in the $trillions a year.
Should these externalities be reflected in consumer prices, we may find that fossil fuels represent the most expensive form of energy ever conceived by man.
You might already be paying $millions a year for fossil energy.You just haven't been presented with the invoice.
That being the case,zero-carbon,renewable energy begins to look like the greatest energy bargain ever conceived by man.
Yep,it's the KOOL-AID.

[sendler]

I stumbled onto this World energy report 2017 -2050

https://seekingalpha.com/article/408...-annual-report
.
.

.
.