always knew global warming was a hoax

Every president adds to the debt and every president adds more to the debt than any president ever has in the history of the country. To get it under control Libs have to stop only bitching about it when a Republican is in office and Republicans have to only stop bitching about it when a Democrat is in office.

Quote: PBguy

There's a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters that attempts to explain and minimize the difference between climate models and reality. Over the last 15 years the earth has failed to cooperate and warm as forecast by the models. This, of course, is not acceptable. So climate scientists had to come up with an excuse. This is the latest excuse. Turns out the models weren't predicting the right thing.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064888/full

Try reading the paper.

Quote: cmc0605

Try reading the paper.

I'd love to read it but like so much 'science' today it's locked behind a paywall. Do you have a copy you'd like to share? Oh and if you disagree with my post you could at least state why. Have you read the paper? Do you disagree with what I wrote?

In 2008 Obama said “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74892.html#ixzz3htT4ulVJ

Now here we are all these years later and he's finally going to make that plan active. Electricity rates will go up as utilities are forced to shutter coal plants and build new gas fired plants or even more expensive renewable energy (likely a combination). It's estimated that this plan will reduce US greenhouse emissions by a whopping 6%. In other words it will have almost zero impact on the climate.

In reality it could increase greenhouse gas emissions as the coal that isn't burned here in the US gets exported to countries like China that have far fewer rules on emissions. Obama never mentioned that.

So in the end Americans will pay more for electricity and it will have little or no impact on global emissions. But it will make some people feel good as if they've done something positive when in reality they've done nothing. It's the equivalent of clicking "Like" on Facebook.

Quote: PBguy

In 2008 Obama said “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74892.html#ixzz3htT4ulVJ

Now here we are all these years later and he's finally going to make that plan active. Electricity rates will go up as utilities are forced to shutter coal plants and build new gas fired plants or even more expensive renewable energy (likely a combination). It's estimated that this plan will reduce US greenhouse emissions by a whopping 6%. In other words it will have almost zero impact on the climate.

In reality it could increase greenhouse gas emissions as the coal that isn't burned here in the US gets exported to countries like China that have far fewer rules on emissions. Obama never mentioned that.

So in the end Americans will pay more for electricity and it will have little or no impact on global emissions. But it will make some people feel good as if they've done something positive when in reality they've done nothing. It's the equivalent of clicking "Like" on Facebook.

The one estimate I heard is it will reduce emissions by 30% by the time it's fully implemented, which I think was 2022. So I'm not sure what you're looking at, but I also can't provide a definitive source; can't remember what channel I was watching when they broadcast his speech.

I don't think your (paraphrasing) "export the coal so it'll get burned anyway" is a legitimate argument against this policy change. We can only do a federal energy policy for America, not the world. However, China is realizing they have a HUGE pollution problem with the fast and large-scale industrialization of their country, and they're having to change their energy policy as well, because they're killing their people with smog. They'll have to do it in their own time and under their own way, because we don't get to tell them how to run their country (China or another).

We have, by far, been the most backward on this among industrialized countries, and I think pretty hypocritical. We've refused to sign or comply with anti-pollution practices and standards many times in the last 50 years, and most if not all of the other countries have been pretty good about complying themselves while not calling us out (much) on our failure to act in the larger interests. So I think this is a necessary and worthwhile step, even if it is painful and expensive. All FWIW.

How much Obama's plan will reduce emissions is open to interpretation. I've seen everything from the 6% I stated to 30%. The numbers are rather fluid.

Even the left wing climate activists are criticizing Obama's plan:

“The actions are practically worthless,” said James Hansen, a climate researcher who headed NASA’s Goddard’s Institute for Space Studies for over 30 years and first warned congress of global warming in 1988. “They do nothing to attack the fundamental problem.”

“You’ve got to be kidding,” he wrote, when asked if the plan would make continued climate activism unnecessary. Obama’s plan, and for that matter the proposed plan Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, he continued, “is like the fellow who walks to work instead of driving, and thinks he is saving the world.”



http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obamas-climate-policy-practically-worthless-says-expert

I have to laugh at the idea that this plan will SAVE consumers money. Can you name the last time a government plan saved people money and rates went DOWN?

Saw this today:

"The government says heat-trapping pollution from U.S. power plants hit a 27-year low in April. U.S. Energy Information Administration economist Allen McFarland said a big factor was the long-term shift from coal to cleaner and cheaper natural gas. Outside experts also credit more renewable fuel use and energy efficiency."

Natural gas is CHEAP right now mostly due to fracking. It's significantly cleaner than coal and cheaper for power plants to use. Yet the push is on for renewables which are expensive and unreliable. One thing that is generally not included when talking about the cost of renewable energy is the cost of the fossil fuel backup generation required to ensure that when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing there is still power.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/carbon-pollution-u-s-power-plants-hits-27-year-low-n404726

Uh Oh

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/612369/SHOCK-CLAIM-World-is-on-brink-of-50-year-ICE-AGE-and-BRITAIN-will-bear-the-brunt

Quote: EvenBob

Uh Oh

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/612369/SHOCK-CLAIM-World-is-on-brink-of-50-year-ICE-AGE-and-BRITAIN-will-bear-the-brunt

Liberals will point to this article as more PROOF of global warming.

Remember . . . THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED ! ! ! !

How is it that you folk can be so adamant in confusing "this is an effect of..." with "this is evidence of..."?

No evidence of global warming, per se, is needed other than global temperature readings. I had thought you had at least retreated from the idea that the Earth isn't warming. Anthropogenic global warming is a different matter, but the science is about as settled as it gets, notwithstanding conspiracy theories or lame arguments like "but papers that don't mention the cause ought to have been counted as dissenting!"

And yes, this is an effect of global warming. Look at the latitude of Great Britain - it ought to be a lot colder than it is. The gulf stream has been keeping it warm, and that's been disrupted. Is that so incredible? Meanwhile, global temperatures continue to rise when solar cycles and the southern oscillation ("El Niño") are taken into account. Again, the change in the gulf stream is not evidence of global warming, which is trivial to verify, but it is an effect of it. And there's no reason it should be evidence for or against a human origin.