Green new deal equals magical thinking

[Stumpy 255]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

 jihad

This is an appropriate word. Based in "faith" with no relevance or relationship to fact, science or coherent thought.

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

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.

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.

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

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.

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.

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

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.

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.

[turtlespeed 212]

6 minutes ago, DJL said:

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.

Wow - Simply Wow - 

 

Damn Dude - You can say that again!

 

[DJL 232]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

Wow - Simply Wow - 

 

Damn Dude - You can say that again!

 

Haha, I my interwebs were screwing up and I kept hitting "submit reply".  I should leave all three posts up but I think once was enough.

[turtlespeed 212]

4 minutes ago, DJL said:

Haha, I my interwebs were screwing up and I kept hitting "submit reply".  I should leave all three posts up but I think once was enough.

But - hey - I agree with what you said - so that makes three agreements all in a row!!

 

Edited July 15, 2019 by turtlespeed
Added Pic - put it only works where Fahrenheit is used

[billvon 2,380]

So Greenland is now . . . on fire. A huge brush fire is burning there now due to hot and dry conditions.

Fun side effect of this - ash from the fire will fall on Greenland's ice sheet, darken it and cause faster melting.

From Universe Today:

========================
There’s A Fire in Greenland… Again. It’s 10 Degrees Hotter Than Normal
JULY 15, 2019 BY EVAN GOUGH

As global warming ramps up, expect to see Greenland in the news a lot. That’s because its ice sheet is under threat of melting. But that’s not the only reason. The other reason is fire.

We know that Greenland, like the rest of the globe, is warming. And it’s ice is melting and contributing to rising sea levels. But fire activity is increasing there, and that’s another indication of, and result of, climate change.

Back in August 2017 a wildfire burned in western Greenland near Sisimiut, the second largest city in Greenland. It sparked a conversation among scientist about increasing fire activity there.

At the time, Stef Lhermitte of Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, presented data showing that MODIS, and instrument on NASA’s Terra satellite, had detected far more fire activity in Greenland in 2017 than during any other year since the sensor began collecting data in 2000.

This one was first detected on July 10th by the Operational Land Imager (OLI) instrument on the LandSat 8 satellite. The OLI captured the image below in both visible light, and in thermal to show the actively burning fire.

The fire is located near Queqqata Kommunia, a small town of about 10,000 people. It’s just east of Sisimiut. The fire is burning near a hut on the Arctic Circle Trail, so it was likely caused by a hiker. There are no trees in the area, so it’s not a forest fire by any means. The area is covered with wetlands and shrublands.
====================

[brenthutch 383]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCprclkVrNPls7PR-nHhf1Ow

 

[DJL 232]

9 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCprclkVrNPls7PR-nHhf1Ow

 

I think Steven Goddard has better material.

Edit:  About Tony "Steven Goddard" Heller:

"Like a shit stain, my blog is ugly, embarrassing and, as much as you hate to, it’s something you have to deal with. One fellow climate denier described my blog as “the crack house of skepticism.” But enough uneducated morons and right-wing ideologues link to my blog to grant me substantial ranking on Google search results. "

https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com/who-is-tony-heller/

 

Edited July 23, 2019 by DJL

[gowlerk 1,902]

12 minutes ago, DJL said:

But enough uneducated morons and right-wing ideologues link to my blog to grant me substantial ranking on Google search results. 

In brenthutch's case I'd go with right wing ideologue over uneducated moron. Although I'm sure he will claim not to be a right winger at all. Only a pragmatist with beliefs that fall on the right side of the fence.

[DJL 232]

11 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

In brenthutch's case I'd go with right wing ideologue over uneducated moron. Although I'm sure he will claim not to be a right winger at all. Only a pragmatist with beliefs that fall on the right side of the fence.

Well, maybe I acted too soon assuming that brenthutch posted a link to Heller's you tube page as an agreement with his points.  I mean, Heller was even kicked off of being allowed to post his blog to the wattsupwiththat website because even THEY thought he was so far from the mark it was making them look stupid.  In fact they've left up an entire section on the wattsup site put together by climate scientists (their rivals) allowing them to explain exactly how far off the mark Heller is from presenting anything resembling fact.

[brenthutch 383]

We seem to be having difficulty separating message and messenger.  What part was made up?

[gowlerk 1,902]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

We seem to be having difficulty separating message and messenger.  What part was made up?

It's really hard to say. The link you posted just leads to a Utube page with a selection of videos that no one is going to waste their time watching. How about if you make a case for something and only then point to some evidence instead of the lazy ass post you just made?

[DJL 232]

10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

We seem to be having difficulty separating message and messenger.  What part was made up?

What part are you trying to talk about?  You posted a link to the guy's youtube page, not  to a specific video or specific material.  So, yes, right now we're talking about the messenger.  If you want to talk about the message we can actually use the words and opinions of other deniers and don't even need to quote the "my people" people because the material from the guy you're trying to quote is the most famously debunked information in the entire debate.

Edited July 23, 2019 by DJL

[brenthutch 383]

View “Arctic ice refuses to melt”

and tell me where he goes off the rails 

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

The guy you're trying to quote is the most famously debunked information in the entire debate.

I am not familiar with his history.  The video appeared to have been well sourced.

[billvon 2,380]

On 7/13/2019 at 5:54 AM, brenthutch said:

Then there’s this  . . .

 

Then there's this - another big coal plant shutting down.  ROTFLMAO!

===============

Massive Indiana coal plant to shut down

Dylan Brown

Thursday, July 18, 2019

A federal judge today signed off on the single largest coal-fired power plant closure since 2010.

American Electric Power (AEP) agreed to shutter one of two 1,300-megawatt units at the Rockport plant in southern Indiana by 2028 under a modified consent decree approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The Rockport plant, built in the 1980s, will continue operating, but the move represents another significant step in AEP's ongoing shift away from coal-fired power. The utility, which serves 5.4 million people in 11 states, will have retired more than 9,700 MW of coal-fueled generation between 2011 and the end of 2020.

To replace that power, AEP brought online 724 MW of wind and battery generation and plans to add more than 9,100 MW of wind and solar generation by 2030.

=================

[DJL 232]

16 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

View “Arctic ice refuses to melt” and tell me where he goes off the rails 

Your guy is cherry picking from a list of absolutist statements and often misinformed "experts" in order to support his claim that he's right. The guy who Gore quoted almost immediately made it clear that his data was being misrepresented.  He lists about 10 claims, some repeated, some by the same people, nothing more than "someone was wrong".  However, his point for that portion is that despite all of this there is no change in artic sea ice.  This is a lie, entirely untrue and that information is available with the simplest search.  His graph, which he attributes to the "multiagency sea ice extent" (Actually Multi-SENSOR ANALYZED sea ice extent) shows a flat line at about 11,000,000 km^2 but the actual graph shows that decreasing and finishing at about 10,000,000 km^2.  Furthermore, he's chosen a segment that starts in a record low period of 2007.  CONTINUED BELOW.

 

 

This is a graph showing minimums from 1980.  As you can see there isn't much of a change from 2007 to 2018 but there's a profound change from 1980.  So now he's not only shown incorrect data from a group he couldn't even pronounce correctly but he's showing the most advantageous period to defend his point.  Next, he's not even talking about the most serious point of data, Arctic Sea Ice Volume.  Continued below..

 

Sea Ice Extent (two dimensional plane) has not changed as much as sea ice volume (three dimensional object).  Again, something to refute his claim that "Nothing has happened".  From this graph below it's quite clear what the trend is.

 

The rest of his gobly gook is about CO2 and I don't have time for that except that it looks like his graph is also showing the incorrect data again.

[billvon 2,380]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

View “Arctic ice refuses to melt”

and tell me where he goes off the rails 

Well, that statement alone is off the rails.  Arctic ice extent from 1979:

 

[kallend 1,620]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Well, that statement alone is off the rails.  Arctic ice extent from 1979:

 

Jeez, Bill, will you quit it with actual data and real science already?

[brenthutch 383]

Wow guys that is all very scary but can you tell me how arctic sea ice extent has any relevance to anything?

[JoeWeber 2,294]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Wow guys that is all very scary but can you tell me how arctic sea ice extent has any relevance to anything?

According to marine geophysicist Robin Bell of Columbia University’s Earth Institute, sea levels rise by about 1/16” for every 150 cubic miles of ice that melts off one of the poles. If you're willing to believe it, that is.

[brenthutch 383]

I am still waiting for the four horsemen of the climate apocalypse (floods droughts hurricanes and wildfires) to rear their ugly heads.  

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

I am still waiting for the four horsemen of the climate apocalypse (floods droughts hurricanes and wildfires) to rear their ugly heads.  

Some things happen too quickly or too slowly to be obvious. Seriously, do you doubt continental drift or evolution because you can not see either happening in real time?