The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by niky

Citation needed on them being wrong:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...global-warming



Again, wrong. Like I said, with citations, solar variance and cycles ARE being factored into studies on the climate.



It saddens me greatly how few of us actually care about fuel economy and energy conservation nowadays.

‘Seismic Shift’ In Climate Science: UN IPCC CO2-Induced Warming Estimate ‘Far Too High’

The IPCC said they were over estimating the damaging effects of CO2 by double what it was.
That's why none of their dooms day CO2 centric climate predictions came true. So instead of linking them all here is the root cause.

Neil saidjust a few pages back the sun has nothing to do with the climate.

[Fat Charlie]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Any time there is a coastal storm during high tide with wind from the east it floods there exactly like that. Been that way for as long as anyone can remember.

I can see the original contractor telling the admirals that. "And this will be underwater several times a year, but everyone will quickly say not to worry, it's been like that as long as anyone can remember." Docks are generally meant to stay above water level. Mil-Spec docks even more so, unless being submersible was one of the specs in the contract.

[oil pan 4]

AL gore bought another multi million dollar beach front mansion in 2013 or 2014.
So the global warming grand wizard him self doesn't seem too worried about it.
And neither should I especially since I live 4,200 feet above sea level.
I like how Al remains cool as a cucumber while all his minions do all the freaking out.
I'm surprised that no one else is finding this behavior a little suspicious.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Wasn't debating anything.
But thank you for flawlessly proving my point better than I ever would have bothered to.
All those are text book example statements of hypothesis and theories.

As I understand it,these are observations.The experiments and data are reproducible.
There's nothing 'theoretical' about it.
A warmer atmosphere is associated with higher concentrations of greenhouse gases.
A cooler atmosphere is associated with lower concentrations.
Are you prejudiced against textbooks?
Can you clarify your position? I'm unsure where things stand.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I was looking over a paper from 1983 detailing 179 year solar cycles.
It was reviewed in 2015, the review found out of the 10 climate or weather related predictions made, I believe there were 10 or 12 of them, all but 2 of those predictions have been correct and the other 2 predictions appeared to be in progress of happening.

By contrast all of the man made climate predictions made since 1983 have been wrong.

But the sun isn't the driving force behind the climate, according to the believers who are constantly always wrong with their predictions.

I had that paper on the my work computer, at work let me see if I can find it again.
(I worked this weekend and hopefully I won't work today or tomorrow)

I'd be hard-pressed to believe that any celestial mechanics has been overlooked or omitted from the climate models.You're talking about NASA you know?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

More like the media is what stands in our way. I hauled firewood upriver with my friend today. He said the he get info from 'primary sources' through the mainstream media, and ignores conspiritoral opinion. I said "Oh, like Fire & Fury and Stormy Daniels?" He had to a reluctantly agree. Never heard of Maggie Nixon.

Uncensorial truth is all that's needed. That and the TCP/IP stack.



This is why I didn't respond to your question. It leads to more questions, like is the Thorium extracted from coal slag or from sea water with graphene sheets with nano-pores. Then that leads to other quetions and that leads to.... who knows?

Al I know,is that there are historical precedents which illustrate that an entire population's priorities can be re-directed with the media within 72-hours.

[oil pan 4]

Which law of science are you referring to as the one that proves the atmosphere warms when certain gas levels are increased?
I have spent upwards of 6,000 to 7,000 dollars on them, so obviously I love them.
My position is that the climate has been changing for the last several billion years and now man thinks he is the driving force.
I have always said the planet is warming, as it has been for the last 10,000 to 12,000 years, i would be more worried if it were cooling and man likely has some effect.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Run the numbers. There is no way to possibly build out enough wind and solar hardware to even come close to replacing what we are using. Not to mention the storage issue that no renewable (rebuildable) advocate ever wants to talk about. The editorial style of the writers gets a little cutesy and long winded but the "Roadmap To Nowhere" lays out some good analysis to show the futility of believing a wind/ solar energy system can ever replace what we have now.
.
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.com/wp-c...compressed.pdf
.
.

.
.

In a certain context we could agree.
On a wartime footing,all bets would be off the table for their conclusions.
They forget the Arsenal of Democracy,Forge of Freedom capability of the country.And wartime rationing.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Renewable energy does need need military protection.
Let's say we cover the southern US with solar and wind power, some how Mexico gets their stuff together in the next 50 years and becomes more aggressive.
With no military they roll in and take what they want, smash the rest.

Most of the renewable energy is under government or corporate control. Huge government funded and or controlled renewable power projects are precisely what the globe warming true believers are demanding.
I don't know how you came up with this fake "renewabls belong to everyone" idea.
I think a large portion pf the solar should be collected by individual roof tops of residences.

Every other country with a nuclear program doesn't have this nuclear waste problem. The US didnt either we started letting people with political science majors make decisions better handled by nuclear chemists.

If you are so worried about radio active waste then what's the plan for all the radio active waste that comes up with all the rare earth metals needed to make all this renewable tech such as high efficiency mono and poly crystalline solar, high efficiency motors and alternators that use permanent magnets?
Do you have any idea how this stuff is usually mined?
Because what you are saying makes me think that you don't.

Perhaps we can get the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to comment on their color plans for a confrontation on our southern border.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

People who agree with me tend to be the well informed weirdos, trouble makers who question authority and most of all don't trust authority.

Actually if the concentrated nuclear waste isotopes were melted into and blended with glass it wouldn't be harmful to anyone as long as no one spent a lot of time right on top of the glass monolith. Placing the glass in an abandoned mine would almost be over kill. Then in as little as 200 to 300 years it would be barely distinguishable from things with naturally occurring elevated levels of radiation like granite or bananas.
So it's only "dangerous forever" if it's not recycled and not disposed of properly.
With the way politics are, by the time the government decides what to do with the glass monoliths the radio isotopes may decay to where they could be tossed in a land fill.

Obviously the best way to create a lot more usable energy is nuclear. I believe in the US something like 96 or 97 nuclear reactors on 47 or 48 sites pride between 15 and 20% of energy needs. The US has spent billions of dollars on wind and solar and it barely carved out a noticeable sliver on the old energy production pie chart.

Wind and solar are cheaper than nuclear.They come online much quicker as well.There's no longer a viable business for 'new' nuclear.
Running the existing nuclear infrastructure until it's normal life is over would provide a lot of zero carbon generating capacity.
Existing power demand is elastic when on a wartime footing.And we appear to be in a fight for our lives.