Register to Comment
Page 858 of 6604 FirstFirst ... 35875880884885685785885986086890895813581858 ... LastLast
Results 8,571 to 8,580 of 66032
Like Tree13965Likes
  1. #8571
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is online now
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    39,721

    So when the thousands of climate science papers published between 2006 and 2012 are reviewed, a video interview with one scientist will overthrow climate science?

    That will be as a first, especially as peer-reviewed publication gets top weight.

    Deniers are going to have a hard sell on that one.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #8572
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is online now
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    39,721

    A chart of where ARctic Ice stands as of today:



    These are U of Bremen numbers, which are slightly different from the Jaxa numbers I gave above.

    We get no one storming onto the thread any more claiming there is clearly a "recovery" in ice extent, and only an idiot/ turd/ moron would think otherwise.

    Those were the days.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #8573
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is online now
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    39,721

    I am reading John Nielsen-Gammon more and more. A great blog ... pure science, no politics, no waffle.

    Why Rick Perry is not consulting this man instead of spreading ideological-based misinformation around the country just beats me.

    Any, Nielsen a few days ago was pessimistic about the coming year in Texas:

    the current drought was triggered by a La Niña. There are glimmers of hope in the facts that this next one is not forecasted to be as severe as the last one and that it’s quite possible to have a wet year even during a La Niña. Nonetheless, I’ve started telling anyone who’s interested that it’s likely that much of Texas will still be in severe drought this time next summer, with water supply implications even worse than those we are now experiencing.


    N-G has an interesting post today about 2 tropical storms forming in the Atlantic which might bring rain. Or might bring catastrophe if they go in the wrong direction. One may even hit the east coast USA again.

    Weekend Weather, Catastrophes, and the Three-Body Problem | Climate Abyss | a Chron.com blog
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #8574
    rash mulligan rash mulligan is offline
    rash mulligan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,393

    That will be as a first, especially as peer-reviewed publication gets top weight.
    Still running around the pitch dragging the goal posts with ya.
    Experimental evidence gets top weight.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #8575
    rash mulligan rash mulligan is offline
    rash mulligan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,393

    Hurry up Owedtojimjones ya better put up some more of your lies before your adoring hordes read this article.

    EDITORIAL: Obama's solar stimulus snafu - Washington Times
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #8576
    rebellin rebellin is offline
    rebellin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    882

    Quote Originally Posted by rash mulligan View Post
    Hurry up Owedtojimjones ya better put up some more of your lies before your adoring hordes read this article.

    EDITORIAL: Obama's solar stimulus snafu - Washington Times
    To emphasize the point made by Rash, not only are solar panel industries maintained by major subsidies-- solar panels are deadly as well

    Not only does solar energy cost more to produce than it gives back, but rooftop solar panels are dangerous to your health and hearth. In Germany, Australia, and the U.S.A. fire departments are warning of the deadly threat of fighting blazes associated with solar panels.

    In Germany the issue has recently become a major news item. While city and local governments, swept by the Green mania, are demanding more rooftop panel installations, many fire departments have warned that fires cannot be fought on houses with rooftop solar panel units, and the property will be completely destroyed.

    The largest solar panel blaze in history took place in June 2009 in Germany at the warehouse complex of BP Solar! Talk about "accident prone." BP's 200 square meter array, at Buerstadt, near Mannheim, was one of the largest roof-mounted installations in the world. And it was fabricated by BP Solar.

    A rooftop solar array produces direct current electricity at a potential of 600 to 800 volts, more than enough to kill—and it cannot be turned off. The standard firefighting technique of opening up the roof to vent a blaze is not possible, because putting an axe through the solar panels exposes the firemen to deadly voltages.

    Firefighters in the U.S. also have a policy of letting the solar panel-related fire burn out, rather than fighting it. Reporting on a 2009 meeting of New Jersey fire chiefs, a Florence Township chief wrote: "The final question which was asked really put things in perspective — someone asked that since California is number one when it comes to Solar Panel System installations, 'What do their Firefighters do when a structure fire involves these systems?' Answer was 'they let it burn!'"

    And the solar panels themselves are often the cause of the blaze. In Australia, where government subsidies sparked a boom in rooftop panel installations, a survey of 200 systems found 3% were incorrectly wired, leading to serious fire risk. Apart from faulty wiring by installers, poor quality control in manufacturing has led to fracture in the joints between the solar cell modules, which can lead to electrical arcing. The resultant fires burn at quite high temperatures.

    Solar electricity generation is ridiculously costly, and has only caught on because of huge government subsidies. Studies in the U.S. show that the true cost for the average home is 35 cents per kilowatt hour, and 25 cents per kWh in the desert. Electricity can be generated from nuclear plants at 1.3 cents/kWh, if plant construction time is reduced to a reasonable 5 years or less. Uranium fuel is so energy dense, that the main cost of nuclear power is in the plant construction. Knowing this, the Green Nazis in the U.S.A. fought for punitive regulations which dragged out construction times to 10 years or longer. They thus ran up amortization costs at high compound interest rates to high levels, making it appear cheaper, in the short run, for a utility to build coal or gas-fired plants.

    Meanwhile, Green alternative energy is subsidized at huge taxpayer expense. In Germany, Der Spiegel reports that a study by the Arrhenius Institute for Energy and Climate Policy calculated that solar energy receives EU2.7 million PER DAY in subsidies! This figure is obtained simply by multiplying the EU35 cents/KWh which consumers pay as a subsidy on solar energy, by the overall production of one day, as measured on July 8 2010 Today, one of the largest solar panel installations in the world is atop the roof of the Reichstag building in Berlin.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #8577
    Pat Gill Pat Gill is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,434
    Twitter
    @

    rebellin,

    I hope you are not claiming the above as your own work


    What is the larouche policy on freedom of expression, or even on doing your wewe's.

    Down with sloganeering
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #8578
    Agnotologist Agnotologist is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,925

    Quote Originally Posted by rash mulligan View Post
    And ofcourse those 96 you refer to would be Climate Scientist whose funding , wages jobs and livlihoods depends on keeping the AGW theory alive. What about 96 physicists or 96 geologists ?
    Climate scientists are physicists, usually geophysicists or geochemists. Geologists also can qualify when their work is related to climate caused events. Astrophysicists are also climate scientists when they investigate things above that impinge on atmospheric events.

    There is no such animal as a "Climate Scientist." There are scientists from a multitude of disciplines whose work has climate implications.

    And there are very few scientists whose livelihoods depend on "keeping AGW theory (it is not a theory, btw, but a mix of observed fact and several theories). The vast majority are teachers of science whose work is climate related. Teaching is their livelihood.

    Those who are employed only in research at NASA and similar institutions had livelihoods before AGW. They are kept busier in that one area than they need to be because of political whores and unscrupulous hack journalists.

    In spite of no evidence contradicting AGW, that group of self promoters, frauds, parasitical journalists get as much publicity and more funding than the world of actual science.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #8579
    Agnotologist Agnotologist is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,925

    For a rebuttal of Jaworowski:

    Easter on Jaworowski and CO2 : Deltoid

    This gets sillier and sillier when, wrt the CERN project, those who want to deny AGW insist on presenting as facts what the Author himself says is not so.

    Are they really reduced to this?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #8580
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is online now
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    39,721

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnotologist View Post
    For a rebuttal of Jaworowski:

    Easter on Jaworowski and CO2 : Deltoid

    This gets sillier and sillier when, wrt the CERN project, those who want to deny AGW insist on presenting as facts what the Author himself says is not so.

    Are they really reduced to this?
    Yes.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment