Trumps recent speech at Davos

JimC said:
Follow the money and motivation of the climate change deniers
Click to expand...
Along with that way of thinking follow the money of the believers. So yes you can put me in the ranks with the ludites. IMHO al gore is no more than a con man out to get rich along with his cronies along with being a hypocrite. All one has to do to confirm this is to take a look at his lifestyle. Yep follow the money!
 
bill said:
IMHO the ethanol is and was another scam foisted on the tax payers. It is also a net looser if you look at it from a cradle to pump perspective.
Click to expand...


Bill, you seem to forget why the country went to ethanol. It was to loosen the death grip the OPEC nations had on us. It was not a scam.

You are either too young or myopic to recall the disruptive and expensive threat OPEC poised.
 
bill said:
Along with that way of thinking follow the money of the believers. So yes you can put me in the ranks with the ludites. IMHO al gore is no more than a con man out to get rich along with his cronies along with being a hypocrite. All one has to do to confirm this is to take a look at his lifestyle. Yep follow the money!
Click to expand...

Al Gore is no more of a con man than Charles Koch is.
 
Follow the money. There are more jobs in wind and solar in California than in the coal industry in the entire US. Suppose enough clean renewable energy were developed to make oil less valuable, maybe less than $40.00 per barrel. That should remove the incentive for our leaders to have ships all over the Persian gulf and troops all over the desert. OPEC wouldn't be of much concern. That alone should be worth some effort and investment , even if you are a climate denier.
 
rweb said:
Follow the money. There are more jobs in wind and solar in California than in the coal industry in the entire US. Suppose enough clean renewable energy were developed to make oil less valuable, maybe less than $40.00 per barrel. That should remove the incentive for our leaders to have ships all over the Persian gulf and troops all over the desert. OPEC wouldn't be of much concern. That alone should be worth some effort and investment , even if you are a climate denier.
Click to expand...


EXACTLY! The arguments posed by the deniers are assbackwards, at the very least.
 
Some seem to forget the days of long gas lines, 5 gallon limits, even/odd days to buy gas and closed stations. Keep sucking down the petrol and you’ll see those days once again. There will be no denying when you are waiting 2 hours for 5 gallons of gasoline.
 
Jim if as you say it was started to get us out from under opec it was still a piss poor way to do it. As i stated it is a net looser if you look at the total energy consumed to deliver the product vs the energy from it it has never made good sense.
 
JimC said:
Some seem to forget the days of long gas lines, 5 gallon limits, even/odd days to buy gas and closed stations. Keep sucking down the petrol and you’ll see those days once again. There will be no denying when you are waiting 2 hours for 5 gallons of gasoline.
Click to expand...
So your saying the same thing that was being said in the 70s doom and gloom.except than we was headed into an ice age.
 
bill said:
Jim if as you say it was started to get us out from under opec it was still a piss poor way to do it. As i stated it is a net looser if you look at the total energy consumed to deliver the product vs the energy from it it has never made good sense.
Click to expand...

I’m no fan of ethanol, but it sure beats the alternative of gas prices doubling virtually overnight and gas rationing.
 
bill said:
So your saying the same thing that was being said in the 70s doom and gloom.except than we was headed into an ice age.
Click to expand...


What? If you can’t say something intelligent, best to not say anything at all.
 
Craig said:
I’m pretty sure human activity is more than a small contributor to the progressive climate change the world has been experiencing and tracking for several decades now ....
Click to expand...

Actually, the global warming in the past several decades is not progressive, as the rate of increase of temperature is, in fact, decreasing.

This was confirmed when the data from global tracking stations was re-evaluated after putting back in the data that was "cherry picked" to be excluded.

Slick
 
Last edited:
texasSlick said:
Actually, the global warming in the past several decades is not progressive, as the rate of increase of temperature is, in fact, decreasing.

This was confirmed when the data from global tracking stations was re-evaluated after putting back in the data that was "cherry picked" to be excluded.

Slick
Click to expand...

This is partly true. Still the past 40 years have been the warmest ever, the 20's are on track to continue that trend.

This article does a good job explaining the decrease in rate from 98'-12'

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade
 
Do you think the decrease in warming rate is a result of Man’s efforts, thus far to stem the release of CO2 into atmosphere ?
 
Craig said:
Do you think the decrease in warming rate is a result of Man’s efforts, thus far to stem the release of CO2 into atmosphere ?
Click to expand...

"The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record"
 
Re; https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

There is a lot of theory by the scientists - some of whom seem to contradict one another, one thing we DO KNOW, is the ice caps on Everest and on the top of other mountains elsewhere are melting as are the Polar icecaps- on top of that about 40% of the Australian Barrier Reef has now being destroyed either by Global warming which in itself poses two major threats to the reef: coral bleaching, caused by rising ocean temperatures, and ocean acidification, which—if it crosses a critical level—deprives corals of the ingredients they need to build shells and skeletons. Which DO YOU want to believe? - what we can show you that is happening in the world around us or, as people like D. Trump will keep on saying, -as he is never wrong- the world is not getting warmer. Trump doesn’t care about people in the rest of the world when he is dead and gone, anyway he’s too old to be affected by future global warming. Nor will he be the first mad ruler in history who wanted the world to die when he does.
 
Craig said:
Do you think the decrease in warming rate is a result of Man’s efforts, thus far to stem the release of CO2 into atmosphere ?
Click to expand...

No, as I stated above, IMO man's contribution to global warming is minuscule in comparison to natural forces, and the efforts to stem CO2 are minuscule in comparison to the global production of CO2.

With regard to CO2, the only thing we can be certain of is this .... if you introduce CO2 (or any polar gas) into a glass box with a lid on it, and with a source of radiation impinging on the box, the temperature in the box increases.
As I stated above, more and more scientists are questioning the validity of the glass box model to model the earth's atmosphere. I read a paper recently (published by 3 MIT scientists .... not a shabby institution) which flatly stated the atmospheric temperature of a planet is not dependent on polar (greenhouse) gasses, but on the pressure of the atmosphere.

IMO, the decrease in the rate of warming in the past several decades is due to natural forces. I do not think there is anyone on the planet that can offer proof of this, or otherwise!

Slick
 
NPeteN said:
"The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record"
Click to expand...

There are so many natural forces at work, originating within the earth as those you cite, and external to the earth such as variations in the solar output, orbital variations caused by periodic planetary alignments, axis tilt, etc, as well as man's contributions from burning fuels (all types), deforestation, and changing the planet's albedo, that no one can definitively prove one way or the other what the cause(s) are. It is the complexity of the problem that gives rise to the different viewpoints on the issue.

Yes, the last century has been the warmest on record ..... but face it, the records only go back to the dawn of the industrial revolution. We have anecdotal records that suggest the earth in recent times was at least as warm as now ... example, Vikings settled in Greenland circa 800 -900, they found the land plush and green, hence its name. They abandoned their settlement there circa 1100 when it become too inhabitable for grazing sheep. Example, the Romans grew olives in Britain circa 200-300.

Slick
 
NPeteN said:
If you were actually interested in an informed, scientific, fact based analysis of the questions you have posed above, you wouldn't be asking them here.

Its much easier to sit on the sidelines and criticize isn't it?

I hear a lot of "we can't!" Instead of "we can try" here.
Click to expand...


Ya got nuthin . . . . Again. Just “Kill the messenger.”

Answer the questions, or at least ask yourself those questions. They are honest and practical and point to real obstacles.

Follow the grant money. Folllow the subsidies. There IS fake science involved - not all of, just some of it.

Follow the carbon credits - money.

The hogs of Wall Street and City of London have had their snouts in the trough for decades - the fix is on.

The Third World impact is racist
The First World impact is classist.

It amazes me how easily so many buy into a very expensive and disruptive vaguery that empowers the state and limits liberty - at the expense of the common man and to the benefit of the elites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top