Seen on Twitter:
[Hands a sheaf of papers to Mitch]
Here, slap them in the yapper with this.
New report in *peer reviewed* Nature. It says all your glerbal werming models are wrong, you mindless idiots.
Peer reviewing has been discredited of late. Scam artists critiquing the scams of other scam artists. You can have some confidence when a review flies in the face of the CONSENSUS. It may not always be rock solid, but it’s honest.
Saying “You don’t believe in Climate Science,” indicates you are having a faith based religious discussion.
Saying “The raw untainted data supports the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change,” indicates it’s a scientific discussion.
Problem being, the second statement is tough on your credibility, assuming you care about that.
gl, Glerbal Werming doesn’t even count as a religion, it’s a cult that attracts ignorant bampots looking for a safe space among their ilk; a fetish that allows weak minds to wank themselves publicly. They like the idea of “consensus” being a comforting layer of like minded wombats to fit in with.
As more data comes in, crumbling their pathetic scam, I predict autistic screeching from the left, the likes of which we have not seen since November 9, 2016.
“autistic screeching from the left, the likes of which we have not seen since November 9, 2016.”
AGS: think of it like bagpipes – in a 6X12 room it is the very definition of hell – from a distance (~1km) it can be very entertaining, even pleasing
If the global warmists are correct, clearly we need to build more nuclear plants — lots of them, and fast. Unlike wind, or solar, a nuclear plant can be dropped into the grid to replace existing coal, petroleum, and LNG plants.
Wind and solar are now mature technologies. Together they provide a small percentage of US power generation, and their period of high growth is over.
Nuclear plants provide high paying jobs in their construction and operation, and these jobs can’t be outsourced.
Love the earth? Go nuclear.
I’m all for nuc power, MP. But we have learned that building them can be a black hole that rivals public schools.
As much as I’d like to, I can’t even place the blame on government failure. Although the state was in the kitchen while our turd pie was being baked, most of the steaming filling was prepared by Westinghouse…at least as far as we know right now.
These plants can be built, and built within a budget that makes sense. We just need to get serious about it.
Mac, I enjoy autistic screeching in the background as I gently float in a pool of leftist tears.
One thing worth noting is that I believe the papers that connect climate change with extreme climate are all assuming far greater change than we’ve, even by the most generous estimates, experienced so far. So not only is there no plausible connection of climate change with earthquakes, but there is also no reasonable connection to extreme weather.
But the media will preserve the narrative until it kills them, sad to say.
The anthropogenic climate change (ACC) acolytes seem to prefer the term “denier” instead of “skeptic” for anyone not accepting their shoddy conclusions drawn from flawed models and corrupt data. The use of the term “denier” shows the rigidity of belief of the acolytes, more than lack of “belief” from those who don’t accept their conclusions. Call someone a “skeptic”, and you’re acknowledging you failed to persuade them of your conclusions. Call them a “denier”, and you abdicate your responsibility to persuade them. It should come as no surprise the ACC acolytes are this lazy in their thinking: Often, it’s the same group of people who think the cure to every socio-economic ill is to throw more money at it.
25% of the carbon that has ever been emitted since 1750 (coal usage start) was between 1997 and 2015.
China has 2000 coal electricity plants and will need 3000 eventually.
P.S. The global debt to GDP is impossible to manage without fossil fuels.
One billion destitute poor don’t give a s***.
Earthquakes are connected to global warming in that both are caused by tornadoes….. and sharks.
TFS; it is as if you think that people in developing countries are not going to let their children die to avoid burning a few tons of coal, or something like that. :^)
Ian: good point. Words matter, and they’re saying something there.
3 Billion. BRIC.
Sorry, 2.8 billion. I wouldn’t want to be accused of over-exaggerating data to push a claim tied to an agenda.
I just saw a great article about how much coal China and India are ineluctably going to burn.
I saw another one about how hard it is to actually “improve” the energy mix on the planet.
The pollution and “pollution” from the waste and making of wind turbines, solar, and batteries is off the charts.
It’s all a terrible scam.
Just imagine how much more coal will be burned when China goes electric by 2040. No, wait. Electricity is produced by unicorns and lithium is found under the rainbows. Natch.
About a year ago one of the local mpls/stpaul TV stations showed satellite pictures that visibly showed the horrible effects on our planet. They proceeded to show satellite images before and after of the tar sand mining areas of Canada. You could see the scars on the earth made by global warming.
No. You could see the large sections of trees knocked down so that the tar sands could be extracted. It makes a mess but it is not due to any changes in the climate. It is man-made with big earth-moving machines.
But to alarmists and idiots (I repeat myself) everything from hurricanes to hiatal hernias are caused by man-made global climate change. Can the media ever really stop and ask themselves why larger and larger swaths of the public are turning them off. They present pablum for facts.
The climate is changing, historical evidence conclusively proves it. How much is caused by humanity and exactly what is humanity doing to cause it are very much unsettled science. Furthermore is it positive to blow up the economy causing widespread poverty by outlawing carbon-based energy. Isn’t a more logical choice to seek ways to alleviate problems caused by climate change and humanity moving onto parts of the earth that earlier generations knew could not sustain a high standard of living.
Scott Adams has some good questions to ask both alarmists and deniers regarding “science”.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.