Whiskey_Clear
Banned
- Messages
- 10,486
It's thought to be caused mostly by the El Nino, so I don't think it's completely the global warming signal.
Unfortunately for this discussion, we will literally have to wait couple decades to really see what's going on. First of all for more data to be available, but also as important for improvement on our analysis and understanding of how it all works.
What is chilling about it? Obama cleaned house when he took over. Obama had his clean energy project that cost Americans billions of dollars and got me and you nothing. Obama and the liberal party lined the pockets of their "clean energy" partners with lots of money that produced nothing but more debt for the country and higher energy cost for me. My power usage is basically the same as it was 2 years ago, but my bill has risen 30% as of today. That is because of increased fed regulations on the power companies. I can't prove it, but I'm sure Obam Bin Laden made good bank off the wind turbines, solar pannels, and every other type of "clean energy" source. Climate change is going to occur whether we want to or not. Did the inhabitants of the planet cause the first ice age? No. Me or my family will not be here when the dam breaks, so with that being the case I'm just going to enjoy the ride to the end.
What is chilling about it? Obama cleaned house when he took over. Obama had his clean energy project that cost Americans billions of dollars and got me and you nothing. Obama and the liberal party lined the pockets of their "clean energy" partners with lots of money that produced nothing but more debt for the country and higher energy cost for me. My power usage is basically the same as it was 2 years ago, but my bill has risen 30% as of today. That is because of increased fed regulations on the power companies. I can't prove it, but I'm sure Obam Bin Laden made good bank off the wind turbines, solar pannels, and every other type of "clean energy" source. Climate change is going to occur whether we want to or not. Did the inhabitants of the planet cause the first ice age? No. Me or my family will not be here when the dam breaks, so with that being the case I'm just going to enjoy the ride to the end.
Obama cleaned out Washington when he took over and that includes all scientist and EPA personal. They didn't fit Obama's agenda. Again you can believe anything. The earth has gone through temp and weather changes throughout it's history. If clean energy is your game that's wonderful. The world needs to get in China and India's arse then. They are the world's most corrupt Gov's as far as not using "clean energy." Until we become self reliant for energy this debt will never go away. Clean cars, solar panels, wind turbines aren't cheap and I for one don't have the funds to participate. If America was worried about consumption of fossil fuels, then why is "clean energy" so expensive? If right is "clean energy" then make it affordable.Potential political retribution against Government employees because of membership in professional societies is chilling to me. As is potential political retribution for scientific views.
I don't think Obama or ANY previous administration, Republican or Democrat, targeted Government scientists on the basis of membership in professional societies or for scientific view. Top political appointees are changed out all the time, but not the Government scientists.
Neither of us will be here when the dam breaks. But that's not a reason for me to do what I think is the wrong thing. I'm paying more and operating an electric car since I think it's the right thing to do. And when I replace my southern facing roof, I'll put up solar panels. So that's the way I choose to spend my money. I can only control what I do.
I always wonder why it seemed solar panels were much cheaper to install and use in New England (where you can have cloud cover for weeks at a time) than in Florida or Georgia where you can have cloudless days for months at a time.@GTNavyNuke That is one thing I think we can all agree on. It is better to use Solar power than fossil fuels. Yes it may be more expensive but still just on the elementary level it has to be better for society as a whole. Wind energy and solar are sitting around untapped for the most part.
@GTNavyNuke That is one thing I think we can all agree on. It is better to use Solar power than fossil fuels. Yes it may be more expensive but still just on the elementary level it has to be better for society as a whole. Wind energy and solar are sitting around untapped for the most part.
Do you guys not realize how inefficient solar and wind power are?? Throwing panels up in the house is great if you think it may offset your own power costs. But they are way too inefficient to be considered a viable alternative for providing power to the masses.
It depends on what your definition of inefficient is. Can you power your life using wind and solar with a very minimal impact to the world?
Potential political retribution against Government employees because of membership in professional societies is chilling to me. As is potential political retribution for scientific views.
I don't think Obama or ANY previous administration, Republican or Democrat, targeted Government scientists on the basis of membership in professional societies or for scientific view. Top political appointees are changed out all the time, but not the Government scientists.
Neither of us will be here when the dam breaks. But that's not a reason for me to do what I think is the wrong thing. I'm paying more and operating an electric car since I think it's the right thing to do. And when I replace my southern facing roof, I'll put up solar panels. So that's the way I choose to spend my money. I can only control what I do.
This election season was by far the worst I have ever seen with distorted headlines, articles and blatant agendas (On both sides). I have gotten to where I have to see the original speaker, interview or document so the whole context can be understood.
My initial reaction is it is probably a slanted article and picking bits of facts to slant the article. until I can read the original memo in full I will lump it as a hit piece. But I could see where there could be some thruth to it and if so I would have some problems with it. But then again it depends how many additionas and changes have occurred to the deparment under the previous administration. I would like to see a little refocus on looking at it from a longer term perspective of history vs future prediction. i.e. real science vs what I feel is a bit of trying to fit an agenda to the data adjusted facts
Actually, scientists working for state universities (including Georgia Tech) were targeted/threatened by Democrats for disputing some of the more extreme claims on the climate. We had a thread on it.
Link?