OK, I'm convinced! Climate Change IS a hoax!

Common sense really, and the observation of the climate record throughout millennia, well before the industrial age..

I suppose that if the Heartland Institute's assessment of this NASA data is incorrect, someone will come along and correct them...any moment now.

 

Anyone who talks about climate as 'common sense' is immediately not credible.

Whatever is happening in the climate, it is extremely complicated.

 

Umm people already have.... Over the last few years since Spencer's assertions are not new and he has been wrong numerous times. He continues to spew out misinformation and non-transparent methods which cannot be produced to verify accuracy.

Real Climate -“Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbackâ€


Did you bother to read Chogan's post?
http://priuschat.com/forums/environ...sa-blows-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism.html

A little research on the author can turn up lots of details about his history of inaccuracy, funding sources, and networking with lobbying groups or think tanks.

 

And you will miss it ... again.

 

Yes, skeletons in the closets of major players on both sides (to say these government-funded studies are without agenda while anyone who counters them is out to kill the planet is intellectual dishonesty in itself), which is why I will always contend there is little reason to go bankrupt trying to maybe save the world, unless you think you can convince China and India to match your efforts. Shared sacrifice, right?

How does increasing battery production (for hybrids/electrics) and "necessarily causing utility prices to skyrocket" (paraphrased) ultimately make for cleaner water, btw? "Green jobs" equal economic destruction (the study on Spain showing that for every green job created, 3 traditional jobs were lost...wait for it, another flawed study). Sustainability is just a code word for UN's Agenda 21 population reduction program...not that I disagree with the concept of self-sustainability, just the globalist control freaks who are pushing the idea. I think efforts should be made on a community level (Intentional Communities are the ones who are revolutionizing this concept), not by the mandate of some global agenda.

Forget it, the battles lines are clearly drawn. We shouldn't waste one another's time any further. I won't be back to see your followups, so celebrate your overconfidence amongst yourselves.

Pardon me, that thread referencing Chogan's post had not yet even been created when I first posted the link to the Heartland article.

 

There are a number of ways that it is better for us/environment but I'll list one:

#1 Fuel and oil runoff from city streets into urban watersheds.

 

(quoted from Valero, american, investor, etc)

I am not questioning the study (have not seen it) and the fact that it coinsided with post-2008 market crash resession, but at least get your facts straight. 2.2 (or 9 vs 4) not equal to 3.
=========================
O'k, update.

The claims above are based on study from Universidad Rey Juan Carlos by Gabriel Calzada Ãlvarez PhD, Raquel Merino Jara and Juan Ramón Rallo Julián published in March 09, "Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources" copy @ http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

A couple quick comments:
First of all for whatever reasons in all references to the study "renewable energy jobs" = "green job", so one somehow the losses in energy sector are being projected to all green jobs.

Second, study does not take into consideration the jobs created in manufacturing sector, only accounts for jobs lost in energy sector.

Third, it makes bold assumptions on impact of higher energy rates on energy intensive mfg sectors such as iron metallurgy and chemical.. 31% rate increase = 31% employment reduction. I am not sure what % electric adds to costs, but they still use coal for smelting in Spain, not 100% electric, no?

 

There have been other studies on the Energy type - employment issue. A shame perhaps to miss this one:

http://rael.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/very-old-site/renewables.jobs.2006.pdf

 

Pardon denied. Your statement above was posted 46 hours, 54 minutes after Chogan's post, not before.

And as others pointed out, Spencer's argument is not new and was assessed earlier.

 

Historically any new technologies (plastics in 60s, PC revolution in 80s, internet in mid-90s) led to decade of economic growth.

If you were to conduct study in that time frame you would find that for example plastics would be bad for economy, as they killed jobs in metallurgy. More over you could make an argument that it would result in net job loss as plastics can be morphed into shape and do not require as much labor as metal. In reality new opportunities created by new materials far outweighed the job losses in metal processing.

When recovery period for solar panels will drop to 3-5 years and it will become economically feasible for avg house owner get one, imagine how many jobs will be created in mfg and service sectors.

 

^The climate is dynamic...we could systematically commit mass suicide tomorrow and it would not prevent the climate from changing, and more species from dying out (oops, I just couldn't stay away...soz).

Fuzz, I came back to this thread specifically, not the parent forum when making that post above, so I don't need your pardon, thanks.

Cyclopathic, I was going by memory after seeing the study many months ago (I will ignore your attitude), and is renewable energy not synonymous with green?

 

It is like to say aren't all leaves green? yes mostly but there are leaves which are not green, leaves turn yellow/red in autumn and there are other green things besides the leaves. In this case what you would consider green (low wattage bulbs, high efficiency cars, geothermal heating/cooling, etc) are not synonymous with renewable "green" energy. It is not only the question of getting more but also a question of spending less.

Actually comment was not directed at you but rather at publications in American, Investor, etc. They conveniently mislead people like you into believing that any green job created will destroy 3 traditional jobs.

With respect to attitude comment if you have problems bring it on. Pers I do have a problem with people chanting Faux propaganda and failing to see the crisis we are in weather it is health care or energy.

At present we spend roughly 20% of our budget on either; assuming stagnant economy and annual 5% growth in 8 years we will be spending 1.5 times more (47.7%) or roughly 60% of our budget. In another 8 years it will be 90% if nothing changes.

 

Vinnie, of course the climate is dynamic and species die out all the time. Our concern with rapid global warming is not solely based on species loss. The main worry is how it will affect human infrastructure, economy, health, lives lost etc.. If predictive models are correct then the midwest is not going to be a nice place to live.

 

The Long-Term Outlook for Health Care Spending

 

Freudian slip...

 

Sorry Steve did not have time to look it up.. This actually came up during energy bill discussions. Energy costs were estimated at ~18-20% GDP