Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
But I have to thank you for getting into the spelling insults too. Shows you are running out of anything with any substance to stand on

What a BS, man! Don't you feel ashamed as you're always the fool with clerical errors? Who the hell will accept and respect you if you show typing errors even a 3rd grader would not do?

Spelling insults? Sh*t. Cop-out. There's a spell checker.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[billvon 3,113]

>Oh, and I do not watch any tv news of any kind.

I didn't claim you did. Most of your cut and pastes are from Newsmax, FOX and the like.

>But I have to thank you for getting into the spelling insults too.

You know, I think you're a smart guy who could actually spell if he cared to. It just indicates the level of effort you put into your posts when discussing this topic. Like the science itself, you just can't be bothered.

[FastRon 0]

Follow the money- who stands to benefit cap and trade? the global warming group? its naysayers? Universal health insurance? Whatever. When I look at an election pamphlet, I pay particular attention to which group endorses whom. Usually, I pick the most irrational of those and vote against them. I especially find fault with protectionist groups. When the rational dialogue begins to suffer, I vote for the other guys.

[billvon 3,113]

>Follow the money- who stands to benefit cap and trade?

Evergreen Solar, Real Goods, Kyocera Solar, companies like that. Now, who stands to benefit by denying that climate change is occurring? Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Halliburton.

Next question - which of those groups has more money? Follow the money, my man, follow the money.

>Usually, I pick the most irrational of those and vote against them.

In that case, I'd suggest you vote against the people who are simultaneously claiming that climate change isn't happening and that it is happening but it's not their fault.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Follow the money- who stands to benefit cap and trade? the global warming group? its naysayers? Universal health insurance? Whatever. When I look at an election pamphlet, I pay particular attention to which group endorses whom. Usually, I pick the most irrational of those and vote against them. I especially find fault with protectionist groups. When the rational dialogue begins to suffer, I vote for the other guys.

What? Any clear details available?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

....
But I have to thank you for getting into the spelling insults too. Shows you are running out of anything with any substance to stand on

What a BS, man! Don't you feel ashamed as you're always the fool with clerical errors? Who the hell will accept and respect you if you show typing errors even a 3rd grader would not do?

Spelling insults? Sh*t. Cop-out. There's a spell checker.

the machine i am on right here locks up with spell check
I sometimes use word to compose then copy paste.

My machine at home used firefox and the spell check on that machine works great.

But if I did spell good you would not have as much fun looking down your nose at me

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

>Follow the money- who stands to benefit cap and trade?

Evergreen Solar, Real Goods, Kyocera Solar, companies like that. Now, who stands to benefit by denying that climate change is occurring? Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Halliburton.

Next question - which of those groups has more money? Follow the money, my man, follow the money.

>Usually, I pick the most irrational of those and vote against them.

In that case, I'd suggest you vote against the people who are simultaneously claiming that climate change isn't happening and that it is happening but it's not their fault.

AND that is is happening and it's good for us.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

>Follow the money- who stands to benefit cap and trade?

Evergreen Solar, Real Goods, Kyocera Solar, companies like that. Now, who stands to benefit by denying that climate change is occurring? Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Halliburton.

Next question - which of those groups has more money? Follow the money, my man, follow the money.

>Usually, I pick the most irrational of those and vote against them.

In that case, I'd suggest you vote against the people who are simultaneously claiming that climate change isn't happening and that it is happening but it's not their fault.

AND that is is happening and it's good for us.

This is where is getting very funny for me. The fact that you think that only the deniers are in this for money. YOU too ignore posted info because it debunks this needed postion for you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....

But if I did spell good you would not have as much fun looking down your nose at me

No, I don't.

Every time I enter this site I have to reflect my speaking/writing skills as I am an alien. You're not.

Just talk/write in a proper way, that's great and fancy to discuss with you.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[billvon 3,113]

> The fact that you think that only the deniers are in this for money.

Right. You just keep trying to convince people that the poor, impoverished Exxon executives are powerless to stop the evil, rich Climate Alarmist Cabal of wealthy grad students and government scientists. I mean, everyone knows that Exxon executives can barely afford apartments near where they work, whereas grad students working at UCAR-Boulder fly in corporate (sorry, government) jets, eat caviar and own palatial mansions, paid for with their million dollar bonuses.

Yep, that's the ticket.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Exxon executives can barely afford apartments near where they work, whereas grad students working at UCAR-Boulder fly in corporate (sorry, government) jets, eat caviar and own palatial mansions, paid for with their million dollar bonuses.

Yep, that's the ticket.

I suspect it's not an Exxon execs (and all the others on your list of AGW crushers) vs GW radicals kind of issue.

Given -

1 - the execs are smart
2 - the execs are in energy companies
3 - etc et

I suspect they have plans that benefit their shareholders REGARDLESS of whether it's 'business as usual' OR 'the envirofanatics gets their way'.

In fact, I bet the most profitable business plan they have involves the conflict continuing on for as long as possible in order to profit from both sides with contingencies for several versions of either side of the conflict "winning" the debate and the following power grab in the aftermath.

That would be the company I'd invest in right now.

The second the AGW guys start to lose serious ground, just watch these 'evil' execs you demonize become so green you'd puke. They want the boat to rock. Of course, at that point they'll suddenly become converted and your big heros.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

"and their ilk"

this is a very fun phrase

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

versions of either side of the conflict "winning" the debate and the following power grab in the aftermath.

the only real issue here, is the AGW crowd started the "big power grab' before the 'debate was over'. Had they just played the religion a little longer and let the indoctrinated school children get into voting age - it would have worked. Now it's up for grabs.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,113]

>I suspect they have plans that benefit their shareholders REGARDLESS of
>whether it's 'business as usual' OR 'the envirofanatics gets their way'.

I am sure they do. Nonetheless, they also have a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize their profits. And when the petroleum side of their business dwarfs the alternative-energy side of their business by a factor of 70,000 to 1, they're going to go with the bigger profit. From the WSJ:

===============
[Exxon] is shaped above all by a rigorous analytical culture. "Exxon Mobil is not a fun place to work," says Fadel Gheit, the Oppenheimer & Co. oil industry analyst widely considered Wall Street's best. "They're not in the fun business," he explains. "They're in the profit business."

Remember that. It means that Exxon understands the essence of capitalism: earning a return on capital that exceeds the cost of that capital. At this supremely important job, it is a world champion. All the major oil companies bear about the same capital cost, just over 6%. But Exxon earns a return that trounces its competitors.

. . .

Which brings us to the biggest beef Exxon's critics have: Why isn't the company investing in less polluting energy sources like biofuels, wind, and solar? Remembering that Exxon is above all in the profit business, we know where to look for the answer. As a place to earn knockout returns on capital, alternative energy looks wobbly. For example, the darling of the moment, ethanol, is nowhere near economically competitive with gasoline (and may not be better environmentally, because it is fuel- and land-intensive to produce). Take out the 51-cents-a-gallon federal subsidy, and the true cost of U.S.-produced ethanol is equivalent to paying $6 a gallon for the same energy as gasoline, calculates Michael B. McElroy, Harvard professor of environmental studies. Even subsidies granted for national security reasons can come and go. To a disciplined investor, such a product is not especially attractive. "I don't have a lot of technology to add to moonshine," says Tillerson of ethanol.

It's a similar story for alternative fuels for power generation. Solar-generated electricity is still way costlier than juice from traditional coal- and gas-fueled plants. Wind power is narrowing the gap but is difficult to scale up. Hydro and biomass are clean and fully competitive on cost - but Exxon just doesn't know much about building dams or burning agricultural waste. Its expertise is in oil and gas, as exemplified by its world-class Upstream Research Center in Houston; the company is happy to leave the alternative stuff to others.

"What are we going to bring to this area to create value for our shareholders that's differentiating?" asks Tillerson. "Because to just go in and invest like everybody else - well, why would a shareholder want to own Exxon Mobil?"
=========================

>In fact, I bet the most profitable business plan they have involves
>the conflict continuing on for as long as possible in order to profit from
>both sides with contingencies for several versions of either side of the
>conflict "winning" the debate and the following power grab in the
>aftermath.

Again, I am sure they have contingency plans, intended to allow their survival should their incredibly profitable oil business turn sour. But those are contingency plans against what they consider disaster, not plans they are implementing on any significant scale.

>The second the AGW guys start to lose serious ground, just watch
>these 'evil' execs you demonize become so green you'd puke.

Why do you think they're demons? They are doing their jobs - which, in this case, is to ensure profitability for their company. And if funding the Heartland Institute will help make a few more billion, they'd be poor businessmen not to do so.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

>Exxon executives can barely afford apartments near where they work, whereas grad students working at UCAR-Boulder fly in corporate (sorry, government) jets, eat caviar and own palatial mansions, paid for with their million dollar bonuses.

Yep, that's the ticket.

I suspect it's not an Exxon execs (and all the others on your list of AGW crushers) vs GW radicals kind of issue.

Given -

1 - the execs are smart
2 - the execs are in energy companies
3 - etc et

I suspect they have plans that benefit their shareholders REGARDLESS of whether it's 'business as usual' OR 'the envirofanatics gets their way'.

In fact, I bet the most profitable business plan they have involves the conflict continuing on for as long as possible in order to profit from both sides with contingencies for several versions of either side of the conflict "winning" the debate and the following power grab in the aftermath.

That would be the company I'd invest in right now.

The second the AGW guys start to lose serious ground, just watch these 'evil' execs you demonize become so green you'd puke. They want the boat to rock. Of course, at that point they'll suddenly become converted and your big heros.

Again I will post. Do a little looking around as to who will make money from cap n tax besides algore. Many of the companies listed in this thread by the all knowing billvon stand to make much money should it become a reality

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[brenthutch 444]

Yo duds its the corperations. (sounds of bong water bubbling) Haliburton, blood for oil, dick cheney, carl rove, black water, suvs, george bush.

How cold will it have to get, how much sea ice will have to grow how many glaciers will have to revocer before you say that you were wrong.

[billvon 3,113]

>Yo duds its the corperations. (sounds of bong water bubbling) Haliburton,
> blood for oil, dick cheney, carl rove, black water, suvs, george bush.

?? What are you babbling about?

>How cold will it have to get, how much sea ice will have to grow how many
>glaciers will have to revocer before you say that you were wrong.

Once the laws of thermodynamics are revised, then I will admit that I was wrong to 'believe' in them. Until then, we're still increasing the CO2 concentrations and retaining more heat than we would have if we hadn't released that CO2.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Until then, we're still increasing the CO2 concentrations and retaining more heat than we would have if we hadn't released that CO2.

Of course we are...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>Follow the money- who stands to benefit cap and trade?

Evergreen Solar, Real Goods, Kyocera Solar, companies like that. Now, who stands to benefit by denying that climate change is occurring? Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Halliburton.

Next question - which of those groups has more money? Follow the money, my man, follow the money.

These companies put together don't have market caps that can even match this year's federal deficit.

Follow the money. Follow the money.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Why do you think they're demons?

well, the little horns, the green and pink skin, the teleportation, the eating of souls, all the chanting......oh, the pentagrams are everywhere, they can't even clean up the pentagrams after themselves

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[FastRon 0]

Geez- I guess I should have stopped when I thought I was ahead. Rational discussion, would include not trading barbs in ad hominem arguments. I don't buy Exxon gas because sending a lot of managers to assign 'investigate' an oil spill does not get it cleaned up very quickly.
For thought- I vote against groups affiliated like the Humane Society of the United States, which is NOT concerned with stray pets, and like PETA, IS a radical animal rights group.
For the scientists among you- What % CO2 in the air will be toxic? Is the level higher now than some baseline? How much time do we have?
Showing me photos of swimming polar bears taken in arctic summer, does not prove global warming. The data will or will not make its case. Physicists are forced to modify theories constantly to allow for new observational input- Cosmologists seem to understand the process. Science IS NOT about selecting an outcome and 'proving' it. It is SUPPOSED TO BE about investigation and thought.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Until then, we're still increasing the CO2 concentrations and retaining more heat than we would have if we hadn't released that CO2.

Of course we are...

Heat != temperature.

Adding heat to a melting glacier makes it melt faster, but it is still at 0 degrees C.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Until then, we're still increasing the CO2 concentrations and retaining more heat than we would have if we hadn't released that CO2.

Of course we are...

Heat != temperature.

Adding heat to a melting glacier makes it melt faster, but it is still at 0 degrees C.

Not the part that's melting - QED.

When you add heat to an object, the temperature of the object rises.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Until then, we're still increasing the CO2 concentrations and retaining more heat than we would have if we hadn't released that CO2.

Of course we are...

Heat != temperature.

Adding heat to a melting glacier makes it melt faster, but it is still at 0 degrees C.

Not the part that's melting - QED.

When you add heat to an object, the temperature of the object rises.

Everyone who knows anything about water and thermodynamics (and reads your reply) is likely laughing!

Even the part of the glacier that is melting remains at 0º C as heat is added. Adding heat to an object doesn't always raise the temperature, e.g., if the object must undergo a phase change before its temperature can increase.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Until then, we're still increasing the CO2 concentrations and retaining more heat than we would have if we hadn't released that CO2.

Of course we are...

Heat != temperature.

Adding heat to a melting glacier makes it melt faster, but it is still at 0 degrees C.

Not the part that's melting - QED.

When you add heat to an object, the temperature of the object rises.

Everyone who knows anything about water and thermodynamics (and reads your reply) is likely laughing!

Even the part of the glacier that is melting remains at 0º C as heat is added. Adding heat to an object doesn't always raise the temperature, e.g., if the object must undergo a phase change before its temperature can increase.

If the temperature at the surface of the glacier didn't rise above 0C, there would be no melting. That zone of warmer temperature may only be a fraction of a millimeter, but it is still there.

Regardless of the diversion attempt by kallend, the graph I provided shows that the recent temperature change isn't as 'unprecedented' as Mann et al claim.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706