DJL

Well, these guys using highly dramatic language doesn't negate the urgency by which we need to deal with this. NC beach houses go underwater all the time but you're probably good for the next 14 days. That area is putting a lot of thought into how they're going to build for the next 100 years because even without rising sea levels they're already dealing with the inherent erosion issues of living on sand next to the ocean.

On a geographic time scale he's correct. See this: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4198625,-76.2533944,482m/data=!3m1!1e3 That's my girlfriend's family property. She needs to sell that NOW, as in right fucking NOW because it's going to be unsellable in about 20 years. In the meantime I'm seeding the shit out of the interior shoreline with oyster shell and spat because it's going to be some primo oyster reef if she doesn't sell it. There are plenty of examples of shoreline that will be entirely unusable soon for which the decisions are being made about its value at this very minute. That doesn't mean he's saying there's some sort of tidal wave bearing down on us and we need to run like our asses are on fire.

Are you against this message just because you think he's literally trying to say that you're going to die tomorrow in some sort of Hollywood style apocalyptic scenario where the Earth rips out from under your feet and you're devoured by gay lizard people?

Yes, imminent . Actually, not even imminent but now, as in right now. https://www.apnews.com/65694195c91d4b62b275bd14a6955b4c

I'll go by your yardstick that in order for these claims to be valid that we should be seeing records broken and visible proof. Yes.

I stopped using the search function as it has yet to work on any searches I've made for things that I know exist.

The Troll was thoroughly fed, but he'll be back having forgotten all that came before and with new and different reasons why he won't accept his own previously stated goalposts and metrics.

I've gained more and more respect for him over the years. He's always been an advocate for the positives that religion brings into the world and has taken a beating from those who would rather use it for divisiveness.

And today's news regarding the Global Warming that stopped 20 years ago: The Greenland ice sheet is in the throes of one of its greatest melting events ever recorded https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/07/31/greenland-ice-sheet-is-throes-one-its-greatest-melting-events-ever-recorded/?utm_term=.8b7cce032c98 Out of curiosity, what's the opposition stance about this? That they don't like it that liberals are the one's trying to do something about it?

I disagree. He was asking everyone to get on the stage, I doubt he was trying to work in a joke about the towers collapsing.

It's a bottomless pit.

What specific handouts are you referring to? Which funds from where and given to whom? What is different about them than any government fund provided for research, development and business growth. If this is how you feel then you should be able to answer this immediately, otherwise you're junk honking the same tired old horn.

That's what I don't get too. Republican/Trump tax plan provides breaks for business and the response is "This is exactly what we need to fuel the economy, it means nothing but growth." Tax breaks for renewables and energy efficiency "These things need to survive on their own in a free market! Solydra! Solydra!"

From your article: "So far, the wind and solar industries aren’t resisting plans to phase out subsidies in an orderly fashion. However, Congress is pushing back on attempts to end the tax credits early. Last week, Sens. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), introduced a bill to reinstate some tax credits that had expired at the start of 2018. These credits include benefits for the purchase of electric vehicles, biofuel and biodiesel production credits, deduction allowances for energy efficient buildings, and credit for electricity “produced from some renewable sources.”" Does it sound like the wind and solar industries are not "standing on their own" to use your words if they are not resisting plans to phase out subsidies?

But that's not at all what you said before. I quoted you above and I'll quote you again from this conversation: July 14th Brenthutch: "I am not against renewables. If they can stand on their own without government support, I am all for them. I have a problem with billions of dollars being wasted on the insane notion that we have to “save the planet” or that we will run out of fossil fuels in the foreseeable future. Oh, and before anyone can say “ what about fossil fuels? They get subsidies” I am against those as well. " July 15 Brenthutch: :"I’m glad you said “until the scales are evened out”. I can assure you, as soon as renewables contribute more in taxes than they receive in subsidies I will end my jihad on things green." Not in any of this have you said anything about the renewable sector beating out the fossil fuel sector as far as tax revenue goes. With the exception of biofuel the renewable industry in the US, let me make this clear, IS NOT SEEKING AN EXTENSION ON TAX BREAKS. Worldwide the industry is already standing on its own and in the US we just got there too. Cool, the US collects taxes on gas. It can just as easily be collected at EV recharge stations.

Ok, if you insist. I made it one sentence in and have facts for you. The statement from your link: "Weather extremes are a commonly cited line of evidence for human-caused climate change. Despite the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) having found little to no evidence that global warming triggers extreme weather, the mainstream media and more than a few climate scientists don’t hesitate to trumpet their beliefs to the contrary at every opportunity." From the IPCC report on extremes that it links within the above statement: Temperature extremes: "AR4 concluded that it was very likely that a large majority of global land areas had experienced decreases in indices of cold extremes and increases in indices of warm extremes, since the middle of the 20th century, consistent with warming of the climate. In addition, globally averaged multi-day heat events had likely exhibited increases over a similar period. SREX updated AR4 but came to similar conclusions while using the revised AR5 uncertainty guidance (Seneviratne et al., 2012). Further evidence since then indicates that the level of confidence that the majority of warm and cool extremes show warming remains high." AND Precipitation extremes: "In summary, further analyses continue to support the AR4 and SREX conclusions that it is likely that since 1951 there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events (e.g., above the 95th percentile)" AND Droughts: "AR4 concluded that droughts had become more common, especially in the tropics and sub-tropics since about 1970." So.....how are those facts for breakfast? This is using no more than the link you provided with the material it references. To be specific that's from the INTRODUCTORY paragraph on the section about droughts that you posted. The sentence above is from the IPCC report on extremes in instances of droughts that it links as its proof. In fact, it's the first sentence in the IPCC Report in the section about extremes in instances of droughts. The only thing that can slightly go in your favor is the section on flooding for which the IPCC says, "AR4 WGI Chapter 3 (Trenberth et al., 2007) did not assess changes in floods but AR4 WGII concluded that there was not a general global trend in the incidence of floods (Kundzewicz et al., 2007)."

So....Income tax on the 800,000 people employed in the renewable sector. Let's put that at $35k/year at a 12.5% bracket and that's $3.36bn. Already covered over half of the tax subsidies. Now let's say there's tax on any sort of sales or material purchases involved in this $200bn industry what kind of taxes do we need to be generated to cover the remainder? That's information I simply don't have but in a $200bn revenue industry I can gaurantee that the 1.8% needed to do that is very much covered.

Oh boy..... Didn't you say you wanted the tax revenue to outweigh the tax subsidy? Now you're talking about comparing it to the tax revenue created by other sectors. Renewables account for only about 20% of power usage when you include petroleum. If that's the issue then where's your outrage on the fact that ZERO excise taxes are collected on coal mined for export yet they receive tax subsidies?

I already ate McDonald's, no need to ingest any more garbage.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/25/uk-solar-power-pioneer-solarcentury-profit-grows-860-in-a-year And "" As it stands with the "renewable sector" being a $200bn revenue US industry and a failure rate on govt loans being just 2.7% (about half of the private sector) and those subsidies being primarily in the form of tax breaks which are expiring with almost no opposition you simply can't ask for a better outcome in how the US is addressing the roll of the energy sector in climate change. The "but subsidies" argument simply doesn't hold water and besides, tax breaks are what conservatives almost categorically use as a tool to give an industry and the economy a bump."" Most renewable tax credits expire in 2022.

But you already said you were for renewables as long as their tax revenue outpaced their tax breaks. Changing tunes again now that I showed you that we're already there? That's said without even pinning you down about what you mean by "footprint". I'm guess you mean the physical space taken up by the power generating system and means of production. If so that's a terribly arbitrary way of picking a winner why you area area displaced by dams, mountaintop removal mining, coal and oil mining and transportation infrastructure....

Yet you just posted a long list of things that you think correlate but didn't show any causation.

You're just listing every single method of recording events as if that answers the question. How are each of these events contributing to the current period of global warming? Take them one by one.

Looks like there's been rain where it's been cool and less rain where it's been hot: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/national-climate-201905

And by the way, the causes of these two things are not present today. So that I'm not categorically contradicting you, can you tell us what caused these events and tell us if those elements are present today? You could then therefore argue that it's those elements and not a rise in CO2 that is the cause of our current global warming.