Author Topic: The Warming Climate  (Read 28880 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline waiukuweather

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
Re: The Warming Climate
« Reply #550 on: May 29, 2018, 04:30:01 PM »
I stopped watching as soon as he nit picks about no experimental data etc
you can find all sorts of things like this guy on the internet and their views


Offline SoMDWx

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
    • Southern Maryland Weather
Re: The Warming Climate
« Reply #551 on: May 29, 2018, 05:53:13 PM »
IN other words, you were afraid of possibly learning something new that conflicts with your views?
Jim Wyman
Southern Maryland Weather
http://somdweather.com
http://scit.somdweather.com

Online Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 760
Re: The Warming Climate
« Reply #552 on: May 29, 2018, 06:25:56 PM »
What needs to happen is that governments stop subsidizing alternative energy based on the excuse around so called global warming then we will see exactly who has been ripping off the system.

Offline waiukuweather

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
Re: The Warming Climate
« Reply #553 on: May 29, 2018, 07:13:34 PM »
Quote
IN other words, you were afraid of possibly learning something new that conflicts with your views?
I knew someone would think that
no, I stopped when the angle of attack was wrong/irrelevant, and again, pseudo science , which people get sucked into

Offline SoMDWx

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
    • Southern Maryland Weather
Re: The Warming Climate
« Reply #554 on: May 29, 2018, 08:43:26 PM »
Wrong to who? That's my point...neither side is willing to take the time to listen fully before coming to judgement...Peoples' minds are already made up well before they see/listen to anything remotely against their views....
Jim Wyman
Southern Maryland Weather
http://somdweather.com
http://scit.somdweather.com

Online Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 760
Re: The Warming Climate
« Reply #555 on: May 29, 2018, 09:20:27 PM »
The problem with the so called science is the currently unchecked policy replication that is sweeping through science, probably more so as what the so called scientists can achieve out of it funding wise, a scientist (well most of them anyway) will never turn on the hand that feeds them. However there are some real scientists out there that do in fact question the so call science as these real scientists look at both sides of the equation and are not depending on gov funding/handouts so can be truthful regard the overall situation.

Governments and especially organisations with an agenda have been caught out deliberately falsifying and simple telling lies re data they are trying to use to support climate change and no the numbers do not stack up so why do governments and associated organisations actually have to falsify, corrupt and remodel data in an attempt to prop up their own thinking and agenda?   

Offline Jstx

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 155
  • Baby the Rain Must Fall
Re: The Warming Climate
« Reply #556 on: May 29, 2018, 09:51:27 PM »
What needs to happen is that governments stop subsidizing alternative energy based on the excuse around so called global warming then we will see exactly who has been ripping off the system.

Yeah, riiigght, here's just one documented energy subsidy comparison for a fairly recent seven year period. There are many others, but I only have so much time for 'enlightening' self-shielded 'deniers':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_United_States#History

Quote
The federal government provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables in the 2002–2008 period. Subsidies to fossil fuels totaled approximately $72 billion over the study period, representing a direct cost to taxpayers. Subsidies for renewable fuels, totaled $29 billion over the same period.[21]
 
Reference # 21(above) has workable links to download the whole document (a pdf doc linked from the refs section of the Wiki link given): Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 2002–2008, Environmental Law Institute Archived January 17, 2013, at the Wayback Machine.

A direct refutation of your unsourced allegation of an "alternative energy" ripoff. Most of us know who's doing, and been doing, those ripoffs.

I've also seen reputable sources that place the total US Government subsidies (read: taxpayer money) to the fossil fuel industry, since the 1900's, the last 110 years, at many Trillions of dollars.
It's not called "Big Oil" for nothing, if you got Trillions in subsidies you'd be "Big Matt".

So in just that short period of that report, ~7 years, probably the peak 'alternative' timeframe too, "renewable fuels" got only 40% of the government subsidies to "fossil fuels" (compare those 110 years+ for fossil to the relatively short time for alternatives too, maybe twenty years?).

And remember, the nuclear power industry has also received Trillions of dollars of US government subsidies during it's existence.
These are also just direct subsidies, there are and have been many indirect ones too.

It's gonna take a long long time for the measly "alternative energy" subsidies/credits to equal that kind of government largess to the 'oilpatch welfare queens'.

Online Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 760
Re: The Warming Climate
« Reply #557 on: May 29, 2018, 10:22:18 PM »
What needs to happen is that governments stop subsidizing alternative energy based on the excuse around so called global warming then we will see exactly who has been ripping off the system.

Yeah, riiigght, here's just one documented energy subsidy comparison for a fairly recent seven year period. There are many others, but I only have so much time for 'enlightening' self-shielded 'deniers':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_United_States#History

Quote
The federal government provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables in the 2002–2008 period. Subsidies to fossil fuels totaled approximately $72 billion over the study period, representing a direct cost to taxpayers. Subsidies for renewable fuels, totaled $29 billion over the same period.[21]
 
Reference # 21(above) has workable links to download the whole document (a pdf doc linked from the refs section of the Wiki link given): Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 2002–2008, Environmental Law Institute Archived January 17, 2013, at the Wayback Machine.

A direct refutation of your unsourced allegation of an "alternative energy" ripoff. Most of us know who's doing, and been doing, those ripoffs.

I've also seen reputable sources that place the total US Government subsidies (read: taxpayer money) to the fossil fuel industry, since the 1900's, the last 110 years, at many Trillions of dollars.
It's not called "Big Oil" for nothing, if you got Trillions in subsidies you'd be "Big Matt".

So in just that short period of that report, ~7 years, probably the peak 'alternative' timeframe too, "renewable fuels" got only 40% of the government subsidies to "fossil fuels" (compare those 110 years+ for fossil to the relatively short time for alternatives too, maybe twenty years?).

And remember, the nuclear power industry has also received Trillions of dollars of US government subsidies during it's existence.
These are also just direct subsidies, there are and have been many indirect ones too.

It's gonna take a long long time for the measly "alternative energy" subsidies/credits to equal that kind of government largess to the 'oilpatch welfare queens'.

The only document most are interested in is the bottom line of their power bill.

And since you are pouting "documents" as some credible evidence then most people are over the cash for comment policy replication brigade. What does highlight where a lot of this is going are universities sacking professors who do not pout the comments and agenda the university is pushing, in other words the right comment or no cash. Whatever answer you require I am sure you will find someone prepared to make it "reputable" as long as the cheque is in the mail.

Like even NOAA was caught dumb faced fiddling environment data and for what purpose, to bend the truth what else :)   

Offline ValentineWeather

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 4812
Re: The Warming Climate
« Reply #558 on: May 29, 2018, 10:57:06 PM »


Like even NOAA was caught dumb faced fiddling environment data and for what purpose, to bend the truth what else :)   

Doing this at rural wx station instruments now.  The rural stations being unaffected by heat islands and not fitting the warming narrative so tweaking them up a couple degrees thinking its something the public won't notice, but it's not safe.

I complained several times about it when we had icing conditions several times this winter even taking pictures and sending to local forecast office and ASOS control center. We had a total ice out and the ASOS stayed above freezing 33-34°.
Public is being taken for a ride with this made up crock of crap. 
Randy

Online Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 760
Re: The Warming Climate
« Reply #559 on: May 29, 2018, 11:33:46 PM »
Similar what the Bureau of Meteorology was caught out doing in Australia where they were putting a minimum lower temperature limit on stations where they conveniently assumed their equipment was under reporting so they simply put a 10 deg recordable minimum on the stations, when it's -10 DegC it recorded -10 DegC, when it was -12 DegC it was stripped back to -10 DegC, -13 DegC stripped back to -10 DegC oh how convenient. Not a big deal many of the pouters said, cold has nothing to do with the so called warming climate but what the sneaky buggers had done was attempt to increase the average daily temp and hence claim there was an increasing warming trend, one has to watch these sneaky buggers :)