or do you mean pictures like this:
Posted on 01/15/2018 7:38:31 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Climate change is first and foremost a threat to human society.
That fact has been somewhat obscured in regular discourse, in favor of a false dichotomy portraying climate policy as an upper-middle-class noblesse oblige idea for anxious birders and other environmentalist types, and hardheaded economists who think building up yet more wealth is more important.
In reality, one obvious way that threat to humanity is going to be expressed is through economic damage. In other words, unchecked climate change is going to be terrifically expensive.
It drives home the fact that dawdling on climate policy, as Democrats did when they had majorities in 2009-10 — or denying it's even necessary, as virtually every person of consequence in the Republican Party does — is not going to be some profitable venture. Poor countries will be hit worse, but American cities will be wrecked, much critical infrastructure will be destroyed, and many insurance companies and programs will be bankrupted. It will require endless expensive bailouts and reconstruction packages simply to stay ahead of the damage.
Conversely, the faster we move on climate policy, the cheaper it will be. The International Energy Agency has roughly estimated that every year of delay adds $500 billion to the world total of necessary investment to head off climate change. (A stitch in time saves nine, as the saying goes.)
On the most important issue facing humanity, the United States is becoming dangerously close to a rogue state. Let us hope we can soon rejoin the world community and start acting like sensible, moral adults again.
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
Dunno, and don’t even remember where I found it .. lol
Second rule of the Dunning Kruger Club is: You assume everyone else IS......................
Only slightly less expensive than CHECKED climate change.
For what its worth I read somewhere that the cost of preventing GW would be about 100 X the cost of letting it happen and adapting to it. People dont realize that preventing GW would require eliminating nearly all of the coal fired electricity generating plants and gasoline powered vehicles. That basically sends us back to the 1800’s in standard of living. The thought of doing this based on the recommendation of environmental alarmists who have been right approximately 0% of the time is too stupid to even contemplate.
——There is no doubt that MAN MADE warming is affecting the local weather and therefore climate.-—
It is ???
Please cite one provable
Xample...
This thread is worthless without pictures...
I love it when the left uses lofty prose when speaking of monumentally stupid ideas. Grammar is no substitute for facts, ladies.
Unlikely since if you're a tried and true member you don't know enough to realize that there is one.
8 years of Obozo and now they are blaming Trump.
These people make me want to vomit.
The fakery is what’s been so expensive over the years. I can’t imagine how many billions of dollars were stolen from The American people over this lie.
Yep, definitely the same girl .. good job :-)
Mr. Cooper:
Would you rather have the temperature going up or going down? And exactly which past computer model was able to predict future temperatures accurately? Just wondering.
or do you mean pictures like this:
I cheer your post about thorium and the use of smaller thorium reactors, but despite my research I still cannot understand or figure out the apparent lack of research, funding, and fielding of thorium reactors. I believe based on what I have read that thorium is the BEST option for our future electrical needs, but unless we start seeing some actual movement towards it, it appears to be snake oil.
I am in no way disparaging you and I have been just as enthusiastic about thorium based on what I have read, and I have read all the counterpoints, logical explanations (need for nuke weapons), and conspiracy theories for why thorium is not the next big thing (and is the next big thing) in the future. However, consider that all the benefits of thorium would make it a far better option for nuke subs, nuke aircraft carriers, forward operating airbases, etc etc etc.
Probably the wrong thread considering it is another ridiculous AGW prophecy and I am a big believer in technology that will meet a pressing need, but I am starting to have some real questions about thorium. I have believed it was the answer for the last 20 years since I read my first article about it, but why are China, India, the U.S. military, and others not moving forward with the smaller salt reactors yet?
We were told 20 years ago that China was moving forward as was India, but they have not put them into widespread use to my knowledge. We were told 20 years ago that the technology and understanding was available to build them. Where are they? On paper they make a compelling argument for why it is better and I believe it, but we are past the point to see results and see operational reactors - especially in other nations where our EPA and DOE holds no sway nor regulations. France has been quite progressive and innovative with nuclear energy - where are theirs?
What am I missing?
These fraudsters just won't give up!
They painted themselves into corner when actual Science facts did not support their vision of historical "climate."
They doubled up when real science invalidated their agenda.
Eventually, they couldn't support their own agenda, so their option was to fake the records by arbitrarily adjusting the historical science data to fit their agenda. Blatantly so.
Then they had the balls to refuse access to the original science data which through a disaster of judgement by someone(s), was entrusted to a university professor with a criminal bent.
He erased the original data (hundreds of years worth,) and refused access by real Scientists to his deletions and additions and considered the matter "proprietary."
The quintessential violation and contradiction of the Scientific Method.
Changing the data to fit a twisted version of reality is simply not nice.
Just Google "East Anglia" + Climate Fraud...
and losing 50% of the generated power via transmission losses... before getting to the consumers.
Unchecked stupidity is stupendously expensive
When I worked in load forecasting we figured 8% transmission loss on average within the system footprint, but of course if you’re shipping it a long way that number goes up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.