Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, August 08, 2017

Potent, climate warming gases are being emitted into the atmosphere but are not being recorded in official inventories, a BBC investigation has found. Air monitors in Switzerland have detected large quantities of one gas coming from a location in Italy. However, the Italian submission to the UN records just a tiny amount of the substance being emitted. Levels of some emissions from India and China are so uncertain that experts say their records are plus or minus 100%.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The rules covering how countries report their emissions are currently being negotiated.

But Prof Glen Peters, from the Center for International Climate Research, in Oslo, said: "The core part of Paris [is] the global stock-takes which are going to happen every five years, and after the stock-takes countries are meant to raise their ambition, but if you can't track progress sufficiently, which is the whole point of these stock-takes, you basically can't do anything.

"So, without good data as a basis, Paris essentially collapses. It just becomes a talkfest without much progress."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

What the article actually is saying is that there is more green house gas being emitted then what many nations are admitting too.

which means things are far worse then we think

#3 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-08-08 03:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The climate deniers are already trying to exploit this, despite the fact that they would still deny the reality of climate change if measurement procedures were flawless.

First they insisted for decades that climate change either wasn't a problem or was beneficial to the world.

Then that became too embarrassing even for them, so there's always some issue that we should wait to resolve before doing anything about climate change.

This story is a reason to do more to fight climate change, not less.

#5 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-08 08:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Wow I'm So Surprised! You Mean The Rest Of The World Isn't Playing Along Nice And Is Reporting False Numbers. Oh The Shock Of It All....(said as sarcastically as I possible could)

#7 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-08 12:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Also please explain how some of the monitors were on black rooftops and other places where they should not be to get a accurate reading. While climate change may be real I do believe the true believers do everything in their power to inflate the numbers

#9 | Posted by WTFIGO at 2017-08-08 12:37 PM | Reply

Check back in ten or fifteen or twenty years and let us know if you've decided it's real or not.

You do realize the Northwest Passage was traversed earlier this year than ever before, the Great Barrier Reef is dying, that Murmansk is now a virtually year-round open seaport. Head down to Miami and see what the folks who are paying attention have already seen happening and what they're gonna need to do in the short term.

#10 | Posted by TedBaxter at 2017-08-08 12:59 PM | Reply

#6 | Posted by Sniper

No the sky is warming and it is in the USA because the USA is on earth and running won't help because you can't run to another habitable planet.

But at least you didn't post the usual moron talking point about how it's all just a liberal hoax so good job.

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-08 06:09 PM | Reply

#9 | Posted by WTFIGO

"MAY be real?"

Wow we're making progress. Even the morons have stopped saying it's fiction.

Now maybe you should start listening to the people who've been ahead of you for decades, instead of listening to the morons who said it wasn't happening.

#13 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-08 06:11 PM | Reply

Do you really think the best minds in the world have a clue?

#14 | Posted by WTFIGO

Yes.

The problem with stupid people is they're too stupid to know what's wrong with putting stupid people in charge. Since THEY don't understand science, they think NO ONE can understand it.

Other people are smarter than you. Sorry.

Just like I want the best pilot flying my plane, I want the smartest people determining climate policy. Not morons like you.

#15 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-08 07:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

While climate change may be real I do believe the true believers do everything in their power to inflate the numbers

#9 | Posted by WTFIGO

Only because it lets you weasel out from admitting it is real.

#16 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-08 08:26 PM | Reply

But at least you didn't post the usual moron talking point about how it's all just a liberal hoax so good job.

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

...progress?

#17 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-08 08:27 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

got news for you the earth has warmed and cooled many times and we are like infants trying to explain and understand whats going on.

With arguments like "but the climate has always cycled...duh..." you're definitely "like an infant", as are most righties on this topic who love that argument.

Which is why we're constantly trying to explain it to you but you just can't seem to grasp it.

#18 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-08 08:29 PM | Reply

"we are like infants trying to explain and understand whats going on."

You sure do a good job of crying like an infant when someone suggests you ought to remove your tiny suckhole from the fossil fuel teat.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-08 08:46 PM | Reply

Posted by boaz at 2017-08-08 09:16 PM | Reply

Research the dust bowl and then say that.

#21 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-08 09:19 PM | Reply

"1. Man has no effect on it."

Why can't man affect climate?

We can dam rivers, build lakes, split the atom, and fly to the moon, but we can't affect climate?

Did anyone even tell you that or did it just spring forth from the fount of knowlegde that is your, uh, I guess we have to call it your brain?

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-08 09:26 PM | Reply

#20 | Posted by boaz

Just write I'M AN IDIOT next time.

Even exxon admits man is changing the climate. Not even the people who profit most from pollution take your moronic stance.

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-08 09:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#20 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Why bother giving us your shallow opinion on the science when really all that matters to you is money?

Your opinion will always be that which you think will increase the amount of money you have.

#24 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-08 11:29 PM | Reply

#20 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2017-08-08 09:16 PM | FLAG:

boaz thank you for your service to our country but you are a ------- idiot.

#25 | Posted by cjk85 at 2017-08-08 11:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

1. Man has no effect on it.
2. This would have been happening whether man is here or not.
So...

Both 1 and 2 are the same thing. Are you really that clueless, BO?

#26 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-08-09 12:15 AM | Reply

Wait'll he finds out what it's gonna cost him later. This is why they deny, they're afraid if they acknowledge climate change it'll affect the bottom line. He'll prolly say he doesn't care because he lives on a hill, but there will come a time when he will care.

#27 | Posted by TedBaxter at 2017-08-09 12:20 AM | Reply

"whether you believe it or not, money is all that matters to the "climate" scientists."

So you believe it's wrong when they do it, but right when you do it? Is that your actual defense???

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-08-09 09:27 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#14 | POSTED BY WTFIGO

It's not name calling if its a fact.

Yes, the planet was warmed and cooled many times. But its not supposed to be warming right now and not warming this fast.

We are the cause of the current warming trend and there are pretty serious consequences for us. The planet will be fine. We are going to be in some pain for a while.

Now stop posting nonsense and get back to finishing your GED.

#31 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-08-09 11:21 AM | Reply

#29 more confident ignorance from Mr "Dunning-Kruger" boaz.

#32 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-09 12:21 PM | Reply

"But its not supposed to be warming right now ....."

#31 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-08-09 11:21 AM | FLAG: According to who?

#33 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-08-09 12:52 PM | Reply

Because, whether you believe it or not, money is all that matters to the "climate" scientists.

#29 | Posted by boaz

Why would anyone take a payoff to say climate change is happening, when they can get a much bigger payoff to say it ISN'T happening?

Even exxon admits it's happening. Do you knore more about manmade C02 than exxon?

Moron.

#34 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-09 01:10 PM | Reply

The fact that this thread exists at all suggests that Rcade may be losing his faith in the climate change theology.

I'm ready to be deleted now.

#28 | Posted by madbomber

And another ------ shows up to pretend to know more about climate change than climate scientists and exxon do.

#35 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-09 01:11 PM | Reply

Something preventing him from flying commercial to "save the world?" Is using 34 times the energy as an average american on his Tennessee mansion "saving the world?"

#38 | Posted by nullifidian

Yeah when you are personally responsible for the reduction of millions of tons of C02 and other pollutants in the atmosphere, you can get a pass for your mansion too.

#39 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-09 01:58 PM | Reply

"Is using 34 times the energy as an average american on his Tennessee mansion "saving the world?"

If it gets every household in America to reduce energy usage by 0.0001%, then yes.

Funny how math works.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 02:01 PM | Reply

#43 | Posted by jestgettinalong

Reduced emissions is still reduced emissions. You act like if you cant reduce them to zero there's no point reducing them at all. You think like a child.

#45 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-09 02:14 PM | Reply

Nulli, are you holding your breath to cut down on your carbon footprint before answering my question?

Thats the spirit Nulli, we all have to make sacrifices, even people who live in bigger houses than you.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 02:36 PM | Reply

"unless you don't burn any carbon, you can't advocate moving to cleaner energy sources."

Welcome back Goatman.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 02:39 PM | Reply

And yes his CO2 foot print should be smaller than mine otherwise he can stop talking....

#59 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain

If you count the C02 his efforts have prevented, then his C02 footprint is about a billionth the size of yours.

#63 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-09 03:36 PM | Reply

Try again

#64 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-09 03:37 PM | Reply

If every person and country did EXACTLY what the experts say to do would that stop global warming?

#69 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-09 03:48 PM | Reply

#70 Don't give the correct answer so soon... Dam you visitor...

#72 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-09 03:53 PM | Reply

"If every person and country did EXACTLY what the experts say to do would that stop global warming? No, but most would live poorer lives and many would starve."

Here's the funny thing: That's also the prediction for what happens if we do nothing different.

So now it's a matter of finding the lesser of two evils, are you game?

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 03:56 PM | Reply

#75 Good boy snoofy, I'll leave you a cookie on the counter when I pick your mom up tonight.

So here's the thing, how about we use the money wisely, instead of charging for cow farts and car emissions and creating co2 taxes (money grab environment style) we simply create less pollution and co2 and call it a day!

#78 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-09 04:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Not sure. This subject is dangerous.

#79 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-08-09 04:04 PM | Reply

"A squadron of 1,700 private jets are rumbling into Davos, Switzerland".

1700 is how many commerical airliners take off from Hartsfield in a day.

There is about 90,000 flights a day on this planet and you're calling out 1700 small jets.

You're really bad at math.

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 04:04 PM | Reply

Try again

#64 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain

Great retort!
Too bad climate deniers only have morons on their side anymore.

#82 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-09 04:14 PM | Reply

If every person and country did EXACTLY what the experts say to do would that stop global warming? No, but most would live poorer lives and many would starve.

#70 | Posted by visitor_

Stop it? No. Drastically reduce it? Yes.

If your car is heading for a wall and its too close to stop completely, do you hit the gas or the brakes?

Climate deniers are impressively stupid.

#83 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-09 04:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"So here's the thing, how about we use the money wisely"

You didn't say what that means.
Presumably because you can't.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 04:27 PM | Reply

#89 | Posted by jestgettinalong

It's just shorthand for "Idiot who thinks he knows more than smart people." We can use that if you're more comfortable with it.

#92 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-09 04:28 PM | Reply

"That's where Zatoichi received his daily climate data from. His pool"

LOL...I had forgotten that, Laura. He had a scientific, peer-reviewed swimming pool. Damn, I really miss ol' Zat. Do you think global warming made him go extinct?

#93 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2017-08-09 04:29 PM | Reply

#90 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Easy they could just put it all in SS and all would be good....

#98 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-09 04:36 PM | Reply

#97 | Posted by jestgettinalong

You can have whatever opinion you want. I draw the line at promoting policies which pollute my air. If your pollution stayed on your land you could burn whatever you want and I wouldn't care. But it doesn't work like that, and other people shouldn't have to be harmed by YOUR ignorance and stupidity.

#99 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-09 04:37 PM | Reply

Maybe all of us aren't rich and can't afford renewable energy.

#101 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-08-09 04:44 PM | Reply

#20 | POSTED BY BOAZ

For all the bozos out there who still think Man does not have any effect on our atmosphere.

Go to earth.nullschool.net

click on EARTH

go to "mode"

click on CHEM

click on COsc

this will display the earth and show you where the worst carbon monoxide surface concentrations are.

now click on CO2sc to see where the carbon dioxide concentrations are.

try some other settings...

You can see man affecting the atmosphere in real time.

enjoy (your extinction)

#102 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-08-09 04:45 PM | Reply

"I'm very aware of the movements to have us jailed if we upset the snowflakes with any opposite opinions."

It's news to me.
Link to their website?
Any prominent politicians, or not-so prominent ones, endorsing this "movement?"

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 04:50 PM | Reply

"In 2014 the Democratic Party voted unanimously in a failged attempt to repeal the 1st Amendment."

What now?
That doesn't even make sense, changing the Constitution requires 38 states to agree, and you know this, so cut the ---- kid.

#110 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 05:07 PM | Reply

"Several Dem AG's attempted to sue Exxon for "denialism"."

--------.
You're smarter than this... I like to believe anyway...

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 05:08 PM | Reply

#97 | POSTED BY JESTGETTINALONG

When did being objectively incorrect about empirical science become an "opposing opinion"?

For instance, 2 + 2 = 5 is not an opinion, regardless of how passionately the nuts on the Right declare it.

#115 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-09 05:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They're FORCING them to do as they want with government passing restrictive laws and regulations, sending the EPA to punish them and by doing away with their means of support. Ask West Virginia about that.
#107 | POSTED BY JESTGETTINALONG

Oh so government intervention is only allowed if it is in order to save WV's uneconomical coal industry? More conservative hypocrisy...

And God forbid the government pass restricting laws on anything (except for who you can marry, what you can smoke, and to prevent "murderous" abortions.)

How can you people be so overtly hypocritical and fail to see it?

#116 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-09 05:35 PM | Reply

Maybe all of us aren't rich and can't afford renewable energy.

#101 | Posted by visitor_

Can you afford moving the population of all the coastal cities inland?
Can you afford food when the farms are all dried up?

Or does your concern for your wallet only extend out a few years?

And Renewables are no longer more expensive in many situations.

#119 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-09 05:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'll send you my PayPal information and you can buy me some solar panels and a hybrid car and we'll call it even. I'll even pretend it will make a difference in the scheme of things.

#120 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-08-09 06:36 PM | Reply

I'll send you my PayPal information and you can buy me some solar panels and a hybrid car and we'll call it even. I'll even pretend it will make a difference in the scheme of things.

#120 | Posted by visitor_

Howbout I just send you a bill for the environmental damage that your gasoline does, which you're making future generations pay for?

It comes out to about an additional 3.80 per gallon.

Making others pay additional cost in the future so that you can have cheap energy today? Sounds like someone is a welfare moocher.

#121 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-09 06:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

JeffJ wised up at least; can't say the same for you Trumperfluffers.

#122 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 06:55 PM | Reply

Howbout I just send you a bill for the environmental damage that your gasoline does, which you're making future generations pay for?

Deal.

Send me a bill for my portion of the total damages, with the receipts, and I'll send you a post dated check.

#123 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-08-09 07:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

How did I wise up?

#124 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-09 07:02 PM | Reply

You didn't provide links that the DNC wants to repeal the First Amendment or that state AGs are suing XOM for 'denialism.'

Because those are stupid claims that didn't happen.

#125 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 07:14 PM | Reply

Howbout I just send you a bill for the environmental damage that your gasoline does, which you're making future generations pay for?

Deal.

Send me a bill for my portion of the total damages, with the receipts, and I'll send you a post dated check.

#123 | Posted by visitor_

But there's your "out" isn't it?

There's not going to be a receipt when the entire population of miami has to move inland, but that will the result of your discounted gasoline.

#127 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-09 07:28 PM | Reply

No, my out was the post dated check.

#128 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-08-09 07:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You didn't provide links that the DNC wants to repeal the First Amendment or that state AGs are suing XOM for 'denialism.'
Because those are stupid claims that didn't happen.

#125 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Actually, they did happen and I would have been happy to provide links. But, since my original posts disappeared faster than Trump's hand up the skirt of an underage beauty contestant, I decided to not waste my time sourcing my claims.

#129 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-09 08:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If every person and country did EXACTLY what the experts say to do would that stop global warming? No, but most would live poorer lives and many would starve.
#70 | Posted by visitor_
Stop it? No. Drastically reduce it? Yes.
If your car is heading for a wall and its too close to stop completely, do you hit the gas or the brakes?
Climate deniers are impressively stupid.

#83 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

When you jump in your car and head for that wall of yours that your to close to, let me know how drastically reducing the your speed does anything to that helps. I'd say wear a helmet but I think that ship as sailed.

#130 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-09 09:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

When you jump in your car and head for that wall of yours that your to close to, let me know how drastically reducing the your speed does anything to that helps. I'd say wear a helmet but I think that ship as sailed.

#130 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain

Of course a climate denier would also demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge about junior-high physics.

Would you rather hit a wall at 10mph or 80mph?

Think hard now. Use both brain cells.

#131 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-09 09:48 PM | Reply

Of course a climate denier would also demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge about junior-high physics.
Would you rather hit a wall at 10mph or 80mph?
Think hard now. Use both brain cells.

#131 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Your numbers are way off.

With Paris Accord - hitting the wall at 10 mph.

Without Paris Accord - hitting the wall at 10.1 mph.

Negligible difference. Now, compare the negative economic impact of Paris vs. No-Paris.....

#132 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-09 09:56 PM | Reply

You want physics then we need to use the actually real numbers. Which oddly is the whole debate to being with.....Hate to break it to you but a semi fully load moving at 10 mph into a wall will do the same damage as your prius going 80 mph. So applied science.

#133 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-09 09:57 PM | Reply

Like I said your helmet isn't needed apparently.

#134 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-09 09:58 PM | Reply

"I decided to not waste my time sourcing my claims."

So you wised up, just for the wrong reasons.

Who sued XOM for being deniers? That's just a lie. It never happened.

#135 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 10:03 PM | Reply

"Hate to break it to you but a semi fully load moving at 10 mph into a wall will do the same damage as your prius going 80 mph"

Wrong. The Prius has more than 2x the kinetic energy of the fully loaded semi.

80,000 lbs * (1/2)(10 mph)^2 = 4M
3,000 lbs * (1/2)(80 mph)^2 = 9.6M

The semi weighs 25x more than the car, but the KE component from velocity is 64x greater for the Prius.

You should have stayed in school, you'd be smarter if you did. Unless you hit your peak in eighth grade, in which case never mind.

#136 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 10:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It absolutely did happen.

But if I post a link it will be deleted pretty much immediately, just like my initial comments were.

So, I'm not going to waste my time.

#137 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-09 10:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Like I said your helmet isn't needed apparently."

Self retorts are always nice.

#138 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 10:13 PM | Reply

"It absolutely did happen."

Name the AG(s).
Specify the charge(s) on the indictment(s).
Or blow away, windbag.

#139 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 10:15 PM | Reply

Lol snoofy what if the semi fully loaded is permitted with for an overweight load. Apply real numbers. You need all numbers to be correct and all variables. Like then what's the wall made out of etc etc etc tires, etc how hot etc etc rain etc etc... when you assume numbers your answer is wrong. Most of the time anyway. Lol

#140 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-09 10:29 PM | Reply

"Like I said your helmet isn't needed apparently."
Self retorts are always nice.

#138 | POSTED BY SNOOF

You said it.

#141 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-09 10:30 PM | Reply

Plus or minus 100 percent.

At what point isn't it a "science" anymore?

#142 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-08-09 10:44 PM | Reply

When you're able to suck your own c***.

#143 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-08-09 10:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Negligible difference. Now, compare the negative economic impact of Paris vs. No-Paris.....

No measurable economic affect on Algore or Leonardo. Others not so financially secure like the poor and middle class could be pretty significant.

That's why people that fly in private jets to global warming conferences don't see the sacrifices that they ask the rest of us to make as a burden.

#144 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-08-09 11:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

An African or European Semi?

#145 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-08-09 11:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

"Lol snoofy what if the semi fully loaded is permitted with for an overweight load"

Then you would have called it an overloaded semi.

Would not change the answer, unless you were planning on overloading it past about 200,000 lbs.

#146 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 11:33 PM | Reply

An African or European Semi?

#145 | POSTED BY VISITOR

Nicely done!

#147 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-09 11:38 PM | Reply

#146

youtu.be

youtu.be

Already tired to tell you multiple times make sure your using real numbers!... I didn't tell you the year of the prius either snoofy it all makes a difference...

#148 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-10 12:25 AM | Reply

#145 I'd give that to FF of I could.

#149 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-10 12:30 AM | Reply

#145 I'd give that to FF of I could.

#149 | POSTED BY PINKYANTHEBRAIN

Unfortunately, you can't. Not on this site. Not any more.

#150 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 12:34 AM | Reply

You just need to know the magic word.

#151 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-08-10 12:40 AM | Reply

Hydroxymethylpentylcyclohexenecarboxaldehyde.

#152 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-08-10 12:43 AM | Reply

#149

*two

*if

That is a glorious magical word madscientist, I will use it only for good, and never against your kind (red heads).... :) it shall make all s@&t smell better..

#153 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-10 12:50 AM | Reply

Study scientists have released a draft climate study linking climate change to human activity. They did it out of fear that the Trump administration would suppress their findings which include:

"With significant reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases, the global annually averaged temperature rise could be limited to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit or less. Without major reductions in these emissions, the increase in annual average global temperatures relative to pre-industrial times could reach 9 degrees Fahrenheit or more by the end of this century."

#154 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-08-10 06:57 AM | Reply

temperature rise could be limited

pre-industrial times could reach 9 degrees

Whole lotta "coulds" in there. With my money and lifestyle involved, I don't want to see a bunch of "maybe"'s...

#155 | Posted by boaz at 2017-08-10 12:28 PM | Reply

#155 They keep pretending that they have every variable figured out in the equation, since they don't and very unlikely they ever will, a could is all they can muster.

After all they don't know what they don't know. Remember the Ice Age warnings? ( a little before my time but I learned about it in grade school)

Snoofy's responses to my post are a prime example. He didn't know what he didn't know, and was chasing false data. I did't miss lead him, he assumed what it should be.

#156 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-10 12:46 PM | Reply

So by Cheney's reasoning, even what Boaz claims is a low probability with catastrophic consequences, it must be planned for.

Already more people die from hot weather than from terrorism, nationally and globally.

All we have to do to stop terror attacks on the United States is stop terrorizing other countries.

Reducing emissions will hit the oil and gas sector hard, a sector which currently enjoys a subsidy of 6% of global GDP (~$4.5 trillion subsidy). Any wonder the lying thieves in charge resist any change in policy.

#157 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-08-10 12:52 PM | Reply

Negligible difference. Now, compare the negative economic impact of Paris vs. No-Paris.....

#132 | Posted by JeffJ

Horsecrap.

Just another moocher wanting his kids to pay the rest of his energy bill. A few more dollars in YOUR pocket is worth burying your kids in climate change costs.

#158 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-10 01:10 PM | Reply

Lol snoofy what if the semi fully loaded is permitted with for an overweight load. Apply real numbers. You need all numbers to be correct and all variables. Like then what's the wall made out of etc etc etc tires, etc how hot etc etc rain etc etc... when you assume numbers your answer is wrong. Most of the time anyway. Lol

#140 | POSTED BY PINKYANTHEBRAIN

"Lol snoofy but if the semi has to always drive halfway to the wall first it will always only be halfway and could therefore never crash" would have made you sound less moronic. "Oh crap, snoofy's math got me, I better change every variable arbitrarily" would have made you at least honest.

#159 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-10 01:21 PM | Reply

Negligible difference. Now, compare the negative economic impact of Paris vs. No-Paris.....
#132 | Posted by JeffJ
Horsecrap.
Just another moocher wanting his kids to pay the rest of his energy bill. A few more dollars in YOUR pocket is worth burying your kids in climate change costs.

#158 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

According to the climate models, Kyoto, Paris, et al. will result in minimal slowing of the rate of warming.

Your beef is with science, not me.

#160 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 01:31 PM | Reply

"Now, compare the negative economic impact of Paris vs. No-Paris.."

I'd like to, do you have one that plots these costs out to say 2100, and includes climate effects under both scenarios?

#161 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-10 01:44 PM | Reply

According to the climate models, Kyoto, Paris, et al. will result in minimal slowing of the rate of warming.

Your beef is with science, not me.

#160 | Posted by JeffJ

Every had a savings account einstein?

What does making a minimal contribution to it every year do over your lifetime?

#162 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-10 01:45 PM | Reply

"After all they don't know what they don't know. Remember the Ice Age warnings?"

I remember the Ice Age movie, is that what spooked you?

#163 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-10 01:49 PM | Reply

"will result in minimal slowing of the rate of warming."

Minimal with respect to what?

Isn't another one of your talking points that the rate of warming itself is minimal???

#164 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-10 01:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Minimal with respect to what?

The status quo.

#165 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 02:00 PM | Reply

Every had a savings account einstein?
What does making a minimal contribution to it every year do over your lifetime?

#162 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Well, since the analysis I'm citing (specifically Kyoto) is measured through 2100, I'd call that a lifetime.

Also, savings accounts and macro-climate are not the same thing, Coppernicus.

#166 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 02:02 PM | Reply

Also, savings accounts and macro-climate are not the same thing, Coppernicus.

#166 | Posted by JeffJ

Duh. But making small changes now results in big changes in the future.

If your problem is that kyoto doesn't do enough, the answer is to be even more aggressive, not complain that the solution isn't perfect so we might as well just kill ourselves.

#167 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-10 02:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If your problem is that kyoto doesn't do enough, the answer is to be even more aggressive...

Completely unrealistic. In order for Kyoto to do what it promised (slow the rate of warming by 2100 by 1 tenth of 1 degree) all countries would have to sign on - not all did. And all countries would have to meet their targets - none have. Not one.

So, let's go back to the drawing board and figure something else out. Trying to force century-old technology, that is completely unreliable and inefficient, into the market drains valuable resources that could be used toward far more productive ends.

#168 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 02:10 PM | Reply

So, let's go back to the drawing board and figure something else out. Trying to force century-old technology, that is completely unreliable and inefficient, into the market drains valuable resources that could be used toward far more productive ends.

#168 | Posted by JeffJ

Awesome. Start voting for people who want to do that. Or at least voting for people who want to move away from our election funding system of legalized bribery so we can begin to try some fixes.

What century old technology are you even talking about?

#169 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-10 02:13 PM | Reply

What century old technology are you even talking about?

#169 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Primarily wind.

#170 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 02:17 PM | Reply

Reality is fossil fuels will be the dominant energy source for the next couple of decades, at least. Until they become so scarce that they are no longer viable or an energy breakthrough occurs, it's fossil fuels.

#171 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 02:19 PM | Reply

Primarily wind.

#170 | Posted by JeffJ

Yeah I know how opposed you are to wind. A clean cheap source of energy. Because you're so worried about the birds.
Not worried about everything that dies because of fossil fuels, but really worried about those birds.

#172 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-10 02:26 PM | Reply

#159 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

You should have read what I originally said... I told him to make sure ALL the numbers were REAL. He assumed. That is not my fault, nor did I miss lead him. I simply waited for him to make the assumption. He could have asked anything he wanted to make sure the numbers he used were REAL.

#173 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-10 02:29 PM | Reply

Wind power in Texas consists of many wind farms with a total installed nameplate capacity of 21,044 MW from over 40 different projects. Texas produces the most wind power of any U.S. state.

Wind power accounted for 12.63% of the electricity generated in Texas in the 12 months ending Oct 2016. The wind resource in many parts of Texas is very large. The wind power industry has also created over 24,000 jobs for local communities and for the state.

Ref:

1. AWEA Texas Fact Sheet (03 April 2017) awea.files.cms-plus.com

2. www.utilitydive.com

3. AWEA Third Quarter 2012 Market Report

#174 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-08-10 02:44 PM | Reply

#173 | POSTED BY PINKYANTHEBRAIN

He did. Climate scientist do.

Just because you don't like the numbers doesn't mean they are false. This isn't trump's imaginary crowd size.

#175 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-10 03:05 PM | Reply

Yeah I know how opposed you are to wind. A clean cheap source of energy. Because you're so worried about the birds.
Not worried about everything that dies because of fossil fuels, but really worried about those birds.

#172 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Windmills have been around for over a century. It's ancient technology. I swear, if someone told you that steam engines were "green" you'd probably clamor for them too.

#176 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 03:22 PM | Reply

#175 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

He did what the scientist are doing assumed numbers. Great for short term guessing (weather). Not for long term (Climate). There too many variables in the equation it's all a guess.

lol crowd size was yuuuge i tells ya yuuuge, compared to the crowd out there this afternoon.

#177 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-10 03:42 PM | Reply

Windmills have been around for over a century. It's ancient technology. I swear, if someone told you that steam engines were "green" you'd probably clamor for them too.

#176 | Posted by JeffJ

Who cares how long they've been around? We haven't had the technology to make them viable sources of electricity until recently. What is your point?

If being old is a reason not to use windmills as energy sources, you know what's older than windmills? Fire.

#178 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-10 03:56 PM | Reply

#176;

Steam engines themselves can't be green or not green. It depends on the what generates the heat.

Coal is older than windmills.

#179 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-10 04:05 PM | Reply

Windmills have been around for over a century. It's ancient technology.

#176 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Wow, I didn't know those old Dutch windmills could produce 3 megawatts of power every day. Or perhaps the new windmills nowadays are really being used to mill grain.

#180 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2017-08-10 04:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Windmills are inefficient and unreliable sources of energy. They will never be anything more than a niche product. Again, that's reality.

#181 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 04:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

All we have to do to stop terror attacks on the United States is stop terrorizing other countries.

I don't know if you were being funny or you are really this stupid.

#182 | Posted by boaz at 2017-08-10 05:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It looks like a septic tank pumper truck was driven all over this thread. I haven't seen this much -------- since Marty McFly lured Biff Tannen into crashing his '46 Ford into the bed of a manure truck in Back to the Future.

#183 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-08-10 05:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Windmills are inefficient and unreliable sources of energy. They will never be anything more than a niche product. Again, that's reality.

#181 | Posted by JeffJ

You just barf up whatever polluter propaganda you're given don't you?
At least you're not pretending to care about the birds anymore.

Is anyone designing their energy policy around ONLY windmills?

#184 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-10 06:01 PM | Reply

You just barf up whatever polluter propaganda you're given don't you?:

I'm barfing up reality. You just don't like the fact that people see this issue differently than you.

#185 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 06:03 PM | Reply

"Completely unrealistic. In order for Kyoto to do what it promised (slow the rate of warming by 2100 by 1 tenth of 1 degree) all countries would have to sign on - not all did"

That's what Kyoto promised?

Also, how did you come to the conclusion that "all countries" would have to sign on?
Let's say all countries except Suriname signed on, show me how that would "break the promise."
In other words, hyperbole much?

You're not talking like a sensible person, you're speaking in platitudes and playing fast and loose with the facts and definitions.

For someone who consistently accuses the "other side" of exaggerating the threat, you are acting like a giant hypocritical feminine hygiene product.

#186 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-10 06:30 PM | Reply

"Windmills have been around for over a century. It's ancient technology."

"Airplanes have been around over a century. It's ancient technology."

#187 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-10 06:31 PM | Reply

"What century old technology are you even talking about?
#169 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY
Primarily wind."

Is there a reason you're not characterizing coal as a centuries-old technology? Or did Mr. Peabody's coal train haul that fact away from your stupid, denialist narrative?

I guess I'll just mention this again: For someone who consistently accuses the "other side" of exaggerating the threat, you are acting like a giant hypocritical feminine hygiene product.

#188 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-10 06:34 PM | Reply

Also, how did you come to the conclusion that "all countries" would have to sign on?

Poor articulation on my part. All countries that were included in the Kyoto accord.

Is there a reason you're not characterizing coal as a centuries-old technology? Or did Mr. Peabody's coal train haul that fact away from your stupid, denialist narrative?

What's "denialist" about my "narrative". Coal is far more efficient and reliable than wind. That is reality.

#189 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 06:52 PM | Reply

"Coal is far more efficient and reliable than wind. That is reality."

How do you measure the efficiency of wind?

#190 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-10 06:52 PM | Reply

I'm barfing up reality. You just don't like the fact that people see this issue differently than you.

#185 | Posted by JeffJ

Because science is an OPINION?

That's like saying you see 2+2 differently.

Your "reality" just happens to follow whatever the latest polluter talking points are. Pure coincidence I'm sure.
The koch brothers fund a study about bird deaths from windmills and you start caring about bird deaths. Yup just a total coincidence.

#191 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-10 06:52 PM | Reply

Coal is far more efficient and reliable than wind. That is reality.

#189 | Posted by JeffJ

Yeah it's efficient because you can push most of the cost onto future generations. Moocher.

#192 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-10 06:53 PM | Reply

Coal is the reason we're not supposed to eat fish more than once a week. Burning coal has put so much mercury into the ocean that one of the healthiest food sources is now toxic.

Is that the efficiency you're so excited about?

What food source are windmills going to ruin?

#193 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-10 06:54 PM | Reply

"What's "denialist" about my "narrative"

Neearly all of it, but here's four.
1. Pooh-poohing wind as "ancient" when coal is just as ancient.
2. Misrepresenting Kyoto goals, and the costs of achieving them.
3. Never producing the cost of achieving Kyoto vs. not, while factoring in changes in warming trajectory.
4. You mentioned Al Gore as though it was relevant.

#194 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-10 06:55 PM | Reply

"Coal is the reason we're not supposed to eat fish more than once a week. Burning coal has put so much mercury into the ocean that one of the healthiest food sources is now toxic. "

JeffJ, thoughts?

#195 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-10 06:57 PM | Reply

Hang a price tag on that before you want to talk about costs, JeffJ.
Since you can't do that, don't try to talk about costs, since you can't even put an upper or lower bound on the cost of the "---- Kyoto, we're rich" status quo.

#196 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-10 06:58 PM | Reply

Windmills are inefficient and unreliable sources of energy. They will never be anything more than a niche product. Again, that's reality.

#181 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 04:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's so much poppycock and you know it too.

#197 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-10 07:07 PM | Reply

#195

Source?

#198 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 07:07 PM | Reply

Windmills are inefficient and unreliable sources of energy. They will never be anything more than a niche product. Again, that's reality.

#181 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 04:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh and it's Wind Turbines NOT Windmills. Windmills pump water.

#199 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-10 07:09 PM | Reply

"What food source are windmills going to ruin?"

Well if my TV education was worth a dime, I learned on Little House On The Prarire that windmills are a real threat to any unmilled grains that may be laying about, and on one very heartbreaking episode, to the windmill workers themselves.

Or to put it another way:

"Liberals are using windmills to eradicate your paleo diet and force CODEX Alimentarius down our throats!"

#200 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-10 07:10 PM | Reply

Source?

#198 | Posted by JeffJ

www.scientificamerican.com
Tuna's Declining Mercury Contamination Linked to U.S. Shift Away from Coal

So which do you like more, nontoxic food or supporting the koch brothers? You cant have both.

#201 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-10 07:14 PM | Reply

#195
Source?

Sorry, JeffJ, my mistake. I wasn't trying to play the free association game, but your answer was a good one! I was hoping you'd do something like google "fish mercury coal" and briefly peruse this wikipedia article which states:

"There are three types of mercury emission: anthropogenic, re-emission, and natural, including volcanoes and geothermal vents. Anthropogenic sources are responsible for 30% of all emissions, while natural sources are responsible for 10%, and re-emission accounts for the other 60%. While re-emission accounts for the largest proportion of emissions, it is likely that the mercury emitted from these sources originally came from anthropogenic sources.[24]

Anthropogenic sources include coal burning, cement production, oil refining, artisan and small-scale gold mining, wastes from consumer products, dental amalgam, the chlor-alkali industry, production of vinyl chloride, and the mining, smelting, and production of iron and other metals.[24] The total amount of mercury released by mankind in 2010 was estimated to be 1960 metric tons. The majority of this comes from coal burning and gold mining, accounting for 24% and 37% of total anthropogenic output respectively."

And then, armed with this knowledge, that you'd share your thoughts.

Thoughts?

#202 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-10 07:14 PM | Reply

Also, good job on not actually mentioning Al Gore in this thread, I was trolling with that, but not with this other stuff I'm rubbing your nose in.

#203 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-10 07:18 PM | Reply

Wind is inefficient, bet Kunta Kinte wished he had thought of that one. But apparently it was efficient enough for the extremely profitable slave trade to work.

#204 | Posted by bruceaz at 2017-08-10 07:44 PM | Reply

Funny how JeffJ disappeared after being confronted by facts about coal power.

I'm sure he'll spew the same pollution profiteer propaganda on the next climate change thread and act like this never happened.

#205 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-11 04:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort