The Markists want to destroy the economies of the free world. They have convinced the gullible that CO2 is the big problem. Perhaps when people suffer from the coming cold, they will understand the scope of the fraud that is AGW.
And yet I've never heard a single *convincing* argument that AGW isn't at least a problem and a contributor. I concede there is the over-statement of the IPCC models predicting the worst-case scenarios which won't happen, and there are likely research cartels which keep out moderating and dissenting scientific voices. A handful of these scientists are clearly protecting a gravy train and the prestige surrounding their public personas. But it's going to take more serious and rigorous minds than Patrick Moore, James Delingpole or William Happer to convince me it's a genuine "fraud".
I won't give you an argument but only the facts. All of the computations are about heat in the atmosphere. We know the earth has been giving off heat from the beginning. There is zero evidence that flow rate is decreasing or has ever decreased. The rock temp. in the gold mines of South Africa at over 8000ft deep is about 140deg.F
From my observations temp. will increase by 15 degrees for every 1000 ft decent. With the 140 temp as a starting point, surface temp could be estimated. Whatever the surface temp. it is transmitting heat to the atmosphere. Have now idea how much it would be, but it should be deducted from the human contribution to global warming.
I try not to get lost in the weeds. I know for a fact that energy supplied by solar panel farms will be less than 10 percent of the suns energy absorbed by the acreage covered by the panels. I cannot afford such energy. In fact, if it is transmitted thousands of miles, line losses will use up most of the energy. Carbon credit is a diversion. I heat with natural gas. The price is likely to be out of sight this coming winter. This senior citizen does not tolerate cold very well. Summer is more of a concern for heat kills more seniors than cold.
Yea anyone who takes the time to learn how energy markets work will understand quickly how renewables solve a problem which doesn’t exist. Namely, how to create cheap power when no one wants it.
Separately, do you have a handle on carbon credit markets? The few carbon credit deals I’ve looked at smelled a bit fishy to me. More specifically, it wasn’t clear how the land they were conserving actually reduced carbon output. If I buy a piece of land that was never going to be utilized any time soon, have I actually reduced a carbon footprint?
Did you read my comment about solar panels? I understand the technology involved. They cannot possibly depend on solar farms in the southwest and transmit the electricity 3000 miles to the north east. Because of losses there will not be any electricity to consume. That's just one part of the fraud. Want to hear more?
I'm not defending against your solar panels opinion, because I basically agree. They make a lot of toxic waste, you can't store or transport it easily, there is little in the way of recycling and you have the human right abuses to contend with.
But the place sceptics often get into epistemic trouble is in conflating scientific findings they wish weren't true, with the corruption of the racket that has built up around it. And if there is room for corruption—and I freely admitted that there is—"then the whole thing must be a racket".
This leads to erroneous conclusions. That is the way of thinking that must be avoided.
The whole thing is a special kind of fraud, it's called a scam. As with all scams there are the instigators and the ones taken in by the scam. It's very difficult to separate the good guys from the scammers.
The Markists want to destroy the economies of the free world. They have convinced the gullible that CO2 is the big problem. Perhaps when people suffer from the coming cold, they will understand the scope of the fraud that is AGW.
And yet I've never heard a single *convincing* argument that AGW isn't at least a problem and a contributor. I concede there is the over-statement of the IPCC models predicting the worst-case scenarios which won't happen, and there are likely research cartels which keep out moderating and dissenting scientific voices. A handful of these scientists are clearly protecting a gravy train and the prestige surrounding their public personas. But it's going to take more serious and rigorous minds than Patrick Moore, James Delingpole or William Happer to convince me it's a genuine "fraud".
I won't give you an argument but only the facts. All of the computations are about heat in the atmosphere. We know the earth has been giving off heat from the beginning. There is zero evidence that flow rate is decreasing or has ever decreased. The rock temp. in the gold mines of South Africa at over 8000ft deep is about 140deg.F
From my observations temp. will increase by 15 degrees for every 1000 ft decent. With the 140 temp as a starting point, surface temp could be estimated. Whatever the surface temp. it is transmitting heat to the atmosphere. Have now idea how much it would be, but it should be deducted from the human contribution to global warming.
CO2 is the big problem==True. Bigger Problem, Energy Poverty in 1/2 World Population.
I try not to get lost in the weeds. I know for a fact that energy supplied by solar panel farms will be less than 10 percent of the suns energy absorbed by the acreage covered by the panels. I cannot afford such energy. In fact, if it is transmitted thousands of miles, line losses will use up most of the energy. Carbon credit is a diversion. I heat with natural gas. The price is likely to be out of sight this coming winter. This senior citizen does not tolerate cold very well. Summer is more of a concern for heat kills more seniors than cold.
Yea anyone who takes the time to learn how energy markets work will understand quickly how renewables solve a problem which doesn’t exist. Namely, how to create cheap power when no one wants it.
Separately, do you have a handle on carbon credit markets? The few carbon credit deals I’ve looked at smelled a bit fishy to me. More specifically, it wasn’t clear how the land they were conserving actually reduced carbon output. If I buy a piece of land that was never going to be utilized any time soon, have I actually reduced a carbon footprint?
Did you read my comment about solar panels? I understand the technology involved. They cannot possibly depend on solar farms in the southwest and transmit the electricity 3000 miles to the north east. Because of losses there will not be any electricity to consume. That's just one part of the fraud. Want to hear more?
I'm not defending against your solar panels opinion, because I basically agree. They make a lot of toxic waste, you can't store or transport it easily, there is little in the way of recycling and you have the human right abuses to contend with.
But the place sceptics often get into epistemic trouble is in conflating scientific findings they wish weren't true, with the corruption of the racket that has built up around it. And if there is room for corruption—and I freely admitted that there is—"then the whole thing must be a racket".
This leads to erroneous conclusions. That is the way of thinking that must be avoided.
The whole thing is a special kind of fraud, it's called a scam. As with all scams there are the instigators and the ones taken in by the scam. It's very difficult to separate the good guys from the scammers.
The whole thing is a special kind of fraud, it's called a scam. EXACTLY!