2015 sets new record for warming

[billvon 2,991]

>Due to gas prices because of fracking

Yes, and the reduction in demand due to both warmer winters and increased energy conservation.

>Electricity is about to go up rapidly

That was a quick flip flop.
"Prices are going up rapidly"
"Prices are about to go up rapidly"

>Coal costs are going down rapidly due to lower demand because of the alarmist
>This is bubble that is about to explode

Right. The US energy sector is well-known for going backwards in technology. I hear the diesel-locomotive bubble is about to explode, and we'll be going back to coal powered steam engines real soon now. Because of the alarmist.

>and if oil stays too much below 60 bucks a barrel gas prices will rise rapidly

No, those two are pretty inextricably linked. What will drive natural gas prices up is greater demand for cheap gas from all the natural gas power plants going in.

[rushmc 23]

gowlerk

Quote

and if oil stays too much below 60 bucks a barrel gas prices will rise rapidly making the price hikes of electicity even more alarming

Ha! Who is being alarmist now? Marc is!

Alarmism is based on lies. Like the AGW crowd says. Facts, like those I posted, do not fall under that header.

Schooling you is fun and easy.

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

[billvon 2,991]

>>Ha! Who is being alarmist now? Marc is!

>Alarmism is based on lies.

So you are an alarmist after all!

[gowlerk 2,193]

Quote

Schooling you is fun and easy.

Thank you so much. I've learned so much from you.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[kallend 2,027]

rushmc

***

Quote

and if oil stays too much below 60 bucks a barrel gas prices will rise rapidly making the price hikes of electicity even more alarming

Ha! Who is being alarmist now? Marc is!

Alarmism is based on lies. Like the AGW crowd says. Facts, like those I posted, do not fall under that header.

Schooling you is fun and easy.

Dunning and Kruger vindicated 100%

...

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

[kallend 2,027]

Meanwhile, in the Arctic:

www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/07/weve-never-seen-anything-like-this-arctic-sea-ice-hit-a-stunning-new-low-in-may/

...

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

[brenthutch 444]

and the devastating result is, more food for the hungry of the world.....the horror oh the horror!

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

Hi brent,

Quote

more food for the hungry of the world

You must be kidding. It means drought for the actual food producing régions of the world.

California drought, anybody? Pretty hard to grow cauliflower without water.

Jerry Baumchen

[brenthutch 444]

Global food production set a record in 2014 and was still at a near historic high in 2015. Warmer temps = longer growing season = more food for the hungry.

[quade 4]

brenthutch

Global food production set a record in 2014 and was still at a near historic high in 2015. Warmer temps = longer growing season = more food for the hungry.

Did it? Citation please.

If YOU (the very specific and non-generic you) believe climate change is on shaky ground from a science perspective, then I'm a little confused how you can be so certain about food production. Very few people are. It's not anywhere nearly as easy to track as say; PPM of CO2, or sea level, or surface ocean temperatures, or amounts of ice at the poles.

So, yeah, I'd really like to see this citation.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 444]

http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/

[quade 4]

If only the world's diets were made exclusively of cereals.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,991]

>Global food production set a record in 2014 and was still at a near historic high in
>2015. Warmer temps = longer growing season = more food for the hungry.

Good to see you moving from type 2 to type 3 denial. It's a step in the right direction.

[brenthutch 444]

quade

If only the world's diets were made exclusively of cereals.

The overwhelming majority of the world's food comes from cereals and the animals that they feed. Do you think otherwise? Put up or shut up.

[quade 4]

brenthutch

***If only the world's diets were made exclusively of cereals.

The overwhelming majority of the world's food comes from cereals and the animals that they feed. Do you think otherwise? Put up or shut up.

YOU, sir, made the claim global food production set a record in 2015 (then you edited it downward to "almost").

The burden of proof is on you.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 444]

I'll put you down as a denier.

[quade 4]

brenthutch

I'll put you down as a denier.

Just show me your evidence. I'm more than willing to read it and concede your point if you can actually prove it.

Somehow I highly doubt you'd ever do the same with climate change evidence, because it's overwhelming and very easily accessed and so far you haven't.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 444]

http://www.fao.org/3/a-I4581E.pdf

[brenthutch 444]

quade

***I'll put you down as a denier.

Just show me your evidence. I'm more than willing to read it and concede your point if you can actually prove it.

Somehow I highly doubt you'd ever do the same with climate change evidence, because it's overwhelming and very easily accessed and so far you haven't.

I DO believe in climate change! Only a fool would not. Twenty thousand years ago New York was under a mile of ice.... Today it is not... The climate changed. The planet has warmed and cooled drastically long before coal fired power plants and SUVs. However only an idiot would think that man has a meaningful and reversible impact.

[gowlerk 2,193]

Quote

Only an idiot would think that man has a meaningful and reversible impact.

I'm going to assume a couple things. First that you meant irreversible, and second, you are not an idiot. You are correct, we can burn all the coal we can find and it will not have a meaningful long term effect on the Earth. Earth will be here long after we are no longer. However, only an idiot could not see that we could easily affect the climate enough to have a meaningful impact on our civilization.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

brenthutch

I DO believe in climate change! Only a fool would not. Twenty thousand years ago New York was under a mile of ice.... Today it is not... The climate changed. The planet has warmed and cooled drastically long before coal fired power plants and SUVs. However only an idiot would think that man has a meaningful and reversible impact.

Would you consider the devastation caused by acid rain meaningful? Do you think it's been reversed?

How about CFCs and the ozone layer?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[brenthutch 444]

gowlerk

Quote

Only an idiot would think that man has a meaningful and reversible impact.

I'm going to assume a couple things. First that you meant irreversible, and second, you are not an idiot. You are correct, we can burn all the coal we can find and it will not have a meaningful long term effect on the Earth. Earth will be here long after we are no longer. However, only an idiot could not see that we could easily affect the climate enough to have a meaningful impact on our civilization.

No I meant reversible, that somehow man can change the weather and the sea levels by putting up some solar panels and taking a bus to work.

[turtlespeed 220]

gowlerk

Quote

Only an idiot would think that man has a meaningful and reversible impact.

I'm going to assume a couple things. First that you meant irreversible, and second, you are not an idiot. You are correct, we can burn all the coal we can find and it will not have a meaningful long term effect on the Earth. Earth will be here long after we are no longer. However, only an idiot could not see that we could easily affect the climate enough to have a meaningful impact on our civilization.

So tell me . . . What if the effect is beneficial for the majority?

Why would we want to stop that?

There are really only two answers to that - either we have a wish to be worse off, or the sensationalism and fear that can be propagated is worth money.

Money drives the "Green" industry.
Money is what makes all the climate scientists stick around instead of going into different fields.
Money is the corrupting factor in all this BS.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,027]

turtlespeed

So tell me . . . What if the effect is beneficial for the majority?

Human activities beneficial to the majority are generally encouraged: universal education, vaccination, water treatment... Only the most rabid anti- socialist (or idiot) opposes these.

...

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

[gowlerk 2,193]

Quote

No I meant reversible, that somehow man can change the weather and the sea levels by putting up some solar panels and taking a bus to work.

Oh, well in that case you are misrepresenting the goal. Or, as is a favourite phrase here, "moving the goal posts". (First time I've typed that, I think I owe beer) The goal is not to change the climate, the goal is simply to limit the amount of change to not much more than we have already done. I won't be taking a bus to work anytime soon. Instead I will support alternative energy sources and reducing coal use.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.