Jump to content

***Official OT MMCC/Global Warming Thread***

Recommended Posts

I haven't said a word about margin of error. it's not necessary because NASA already converted it to a more useful number: a 94% chance it was the hottest year on record. just because Richard was droning on about MoE and how he's smarter than NASA doesn't mean he deserves a reply. this is just you guys being disingenuous, like you're the only shmucks who took stats in college. sure, dude. please educate us what those weird pluses and minuses mean.

Lol

Lol

No, We know what NASA said, and we know what the media put out. There you have it. No one is smarter than NASA, but everyone is smarter than the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol oh, is this a "the temperature rose before so greenhouse gases don't contribute" thing? no thanks.

How much do the green house gases contribute to warming? What caused the previous warming? It's so confusing when the science is settled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Hank H1LL   

Guest Hank H1LL

stop making absolute claims! we don't even have a reliable temp record. noob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stop making absolute claims! we don't even have a reliable temp record. noob.

The most reliable is satellite which aren't showing the same warming since 1979 as the unreliable surface

stations

The Romans enjoyed their warming period, we should do the same

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Hank H1LL   

Guest Hank H1LL
a. does it matter?

b. subsidies for richers afaict

of course it matters. it also matters if that $5 billion a year stays in our pockets or if it's spent on something worse. what subsidies for richers? I was hoping you could be specific, not pull a RichardHurtz and offer scare tactics.

like the $7500 federal refund on Tesla's $35000 car? doesn't seem like that's only for rich people. that's like 1/3 of our green energy subsides right there, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Hank H1LL   

Guest Hank H1LL

this is why it's funny ginwilly thinks we can have a productive conversation itt. this is just politics to the people here. nobody wants to talk about MMCC. they disagree with the politics of it so they'll cling to whatever they can find to support their prejudgment. rcrane and niptuck don't stick around for page 167 of science threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

norcaljeff    2

of course it matters. it also matters if that $5 billion a year stays in our pockets or if it's spent on something worse. what subsidies for richers? I was hoping you could be specific, not pull a RichardHurtz and offer scare tactics.

like the $7500 federal refund on Tesla's $35000 car? doesn't seem like that's only for rich people. that's like 1/3 of our green energy subsides right there, no?

lol no, of course not. unless tesla has sold a few billion cars lol

it matters? how so? if your spending is predicated on bad models the spending is bad. i mean, like if you accidentally spent money on something and it helped someone else that might be good?

solar panels, priuses, teslas, billions of dollars in loans to companies that won't make a difference, ethanol. etc etc etc

this is why it's funny ginwilly thinks we can have a productive conversation itt. this is just politics to the people here. nobody wants to talk about MMCC. they disagree with the politics of it so they'll cling to whatever they can find to support their prejudgment. rcrane and niptuck don't stick around for page 167 of science threads.

what is there to say about mmcc?? the only thing to talk about is what to do or not do about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Hank H1LL   

Guest Hank H1LL

haha okay. I post the actual IPCC projections (with error bars for ginwilly), and the 8 other people who read this thread (all conservatards) bitch about the leadership of the IPCC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Hank H1LL   

Guest Hank H1LL
lol no, of course not. unless tesla has sold a few billion cars lol

umm this is why the internet sucks. it takes so much work to find the correct answer, but people like you are so sure your take is right that you can laugh at everyone else.

there's a $7500 federal refund for the first 200,000 buyers, which amounts to $1.5 billion. last I knew our budget includes $48 billion over 10 years for green energy, which averages $4.8 billion per year.

1.5 / 4.8 is roughly a third.

"unless tesla has sold a few billion cars lol"

it matters? how so? if your spending is predicated on bad models the spending is bad. i mean, like if you accidentally spent money on something and it helped someone else that might be good?

well, they aren't bad models. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and operating on the assumption they aren't perfect. you're just taking an extreme premise and arguing from there. it's not that interesting. go wild.

solar panels, priuses, teslas, billions of dollars in loans to companies that won't make a difference, ethanol. etc etc etc

you throw around "billions" pretty freely. I just want you to dig into the budget and see how much we actually spend. then check how many hundreds of billions in subsidies go to the oil industry.

what is there to say about mmcc?? the only thing to talk about is what to do or not do about it

haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
haha okay. I post the actual IPCC projections (with error bars for ginwilly), and the 8 other people who read this thread (all conservatards) bitch about the leadership of the IPCC.

You might as well post something from Dr. Seuss. or the fossil fuel industry. If you can't see how corrupted the IPCC is then god cant even help you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
President Obama has spent about $120 billion on climate change initiatives since taking office. That is the equivalent of 1,400 F-35s — the Pentagon’s most expensive fighter jets, according to estimates by Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/29/gop-cost-of-green-initiatives-is-us-security/?page=all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

norcaljeff    2

umm this is why the internet sucks. it takes so much work to find the correct answer, but people like you are so sure your take is right that you can laugh at everyone else.

there's a $7500 federal refund for the first 200,000 buyers, which amounts to $1.5 billion. last I knew our budget includes $48 billion over 10 years for green energy, which averages $4.8 billion per year.

1.5 / 4.8 is roughly a third.

"unless tesla has sold a few billion cars lol"

well, they aren't bad models. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and operating on the assumption they aren't perfect. you're just taking an extreme premise and arguing from there. it's not that interesting. go wild.

you throw around "billions" pretty freely. I just want you to dig into the budget and see how much we actually spend. then check how many hundreds of billions in subsidies go to the oil industry.

haha.

lol in 2013 the budget for renewables alone was 7.8b. the fuck

the models that are all wrong and always have been aren't bad? interesting take

I mean, can you even count? hundreds of billions to oil? good lord you are delusional

On March 13, 2013, Terry M. Dinan, senior advisor at the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the U.S. House of Representatives that federal energy tax subsidies would cost $16.4 billion that fiscal year, broken down as follows:

Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)

Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)

Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)

Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)

In addition, Dinan testified that the U.S. Department of Energy would spend an additional $3.4 billion on financial Support for energy technologies and energy efficiency, broken down as follows:

Energy efficiency and renewable energy: $1.7 billion (51 percent)

Nuclear energy: $0.7 billion (22 percent)

Fossil energy research & development: $0.5 billion (15 percent)

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy: $0.3 billion (8 percent)

Electricity delivery and energy reliability: $0.1 billion (4 percent)[29]

haha indeed, you seem to have no clue about what's really happening but you want to have some debate about mmcc that concerns something other than responses?? like what? you want to argue about whether it's happening or not? that's always a fun and productive debate that leads somewhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Summary of Climate Expenditures1

FY 2012 Enacted Budget Authority

FY 2013 Enacted Budget Authority

FY 2013 Current Budget Authority8

FY 2014 Proposed Budget Authority

Change in Budget Authority 2013-2014

US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)

2,506

2,509

2,463

2,658

+149

Clean Energy Technologies

6,121

6,088

5,783

7,933

+1,845

International Assistance 2,7

958

851

797

893

+42

Natural Resources Adaptation

88

95

95

110

+15

Energy Tax Provisions That May Reduce Greenhouse Gases 3,4

5,052

4,999

4,999

5,129

+130

Energy Payments in Lieu of Tax Provisions 5,6

5,080

8,080

8,080

4,710

-3,370

Adjustments for programs included in multiple categories

-24

-24

-22

-23

---

Total 1,7

19,781

22,598

22,195

21,408

-1,189

DOesnt format well

But

2012 = 19.8 billion

2013 = 22.6 billion

2014 = 21.4 billion

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ginwilly    0

don't follow why that logic is bewildering.

This is my thinking and admit it's only opinion but I'm curious how people who are trying to make a profit can't be trusted but people who actively seek power over other people automatically can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Hank H1LL   

Guest Hank H1LL
DOesnt format well

But

2012 = 19.8 billion

2013 = 22.6 billion

2014 = 21.4 billion

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

climate change expenditures are not interchangeable with green energy subsidies. either way, $20 billion is a very reasonable figure. reading this thread you'd think we were going broke. isn't the federal budget $4 trillion?

Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ginwilly    0

stop making absolute claims! we don't even have a reliable temp record. noob.

I just refinanced my house and bet on the Warriors to get to 72 wins. I even got 1 to 10 odds. Now that I know 90% probability means definitely I wish my house was worth more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Hank H1LL   

Guest Hank H1LL
lol in 2013 the budget for renewables alone was 7.8b. the fuck

jesus, learn how to use the internet and stop copy-pasting crap from wikipedia.

$7.8 billion is probably wrong but it's close enough. that's a reasonable figure.

the models that are all wrong and always have been aren't bad? interesting take

yea, you're just wrong. see: this thread.

I mean, can you even count? hundreds of billions to oil? good lord you are delusional

not all in one year. lol good catch.

haha indeed, you seem to have no clue about what's really happening but you want to have some debate about mmcc that concerns something other than responses?? like what? you want to argue about whether it's happening or not? that's always a fun and productive debate that leads somewhere

exactly. you just want to play norcaljeff politics. of course there is plenty to discuss. doing it in here is LOL though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Hank H1LL   

Guest Hank H1LL
I just refinanced my house and bet on the Warriors to get to 72 wins. I even got 1 to 10 odds. Now that I know 90% probability means definitely I wish my house was worth more.

from now on I'll try to include a disclaimer in every post that nothing in here is assumed to have 100% probability.*

*this won't actually happen every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Hank H1LL   

Guest Hank H1LL
Oh im talking about what all this nonsense is costing us.

I'd rather spend it on something useful like defense.

how much bigger should the defense budget be, iyo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ginwilly    0

from now on I'll try to include a disclaimer in every post that nothing in here is assumed to have 100% probability.*

*this won't actually happen every time.

I'll take this as your concession that you were doing what you are accusing others on the wrong side of doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

norcaljeff    2

it's a reasonable figure based on what?

which models have been right? or even close? how's the sea level where you live?

oh, you meant all time? might be a good idea to say so and not just applesoranges

what is there to discuss besides what to do about it? srs q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.