Weather Channel Co-Founder slams Feds climate report

originally posted by: DerbyGawker
LOL more denial nonsense. And to even take a corporatist's word, @ ATS of all places, when he isn't a scientist is just laughable.

I guess climate change deniers are running out of fodder.

originally posted by: Meee32
a reply to: mark1167

Why? You are, I presume, working on the assumption that co2 is a huge contributing factor to global warming... But you see, 17 years... NO warming... co2 levels have gone UP... So, how can you explain that?

If co2 was the big contributing factor they said it is then we should see bigger and bigger rises in temps... We don't...

It makes me sad to see people looking at normal weather and saying "Oh my god, we had a storm with winds and rain etc" It's ALL normal! Every now and then you'll have super storm too or something else just as crazy right out of nowhere! This has gone on since the dawn of time...

TO ALL AGW BELIEVERS...

I have a question... Do you agree we had ice ages in the past without humans pumping out co2? Do you agree we had warm periods hotter than today? So would you not say that these events were natural?

Now the real question... How do you know that stopping this natural system will be good? Say you could stop it and bring temps down, how do you know that is good? Also if we were to keep the temp the same forever, would we not being going AGAINST nature to suit our own needs?

Carbon sinks, google it. The buffer is almost full and soon ocean salinity will go to sh-- and you'll really start noticing the warming.

www.ipcc.ch...

Well we can talk corporatists all day but when the F'in government types have ideas about taxing John and Jane Jones for a "carbon footprint" its just simply time to take off the anti corporate tin foil hat. It is the ultimate regressive tax scam. They will only claim real results are being made against carbon when they have managed to tax the paperboy for it.

a reply to: Logarock

...idk how to even begin to reply to you.

Do you think the government is ever going to directly tax you for CO2? Ridiculous. The amount of effort to directly tax every individual for every conceivable point of pollution is absurdly high.

But they have been taxing you already. Since forever basically.

You pay for trash pickup. You pay for fuel (which has it's own tax, both for product and sale). The 'taxes' are passed on to the consumer as increased price, nothing more, nothing less. You pay higher energy rates so power companies can transition to sustainable energies. Vehicle taxes, etc.

IDK where you've been, but all regulations are indirect taxes passed on to the consumer, always have been, always will be. Turning it into some grand conspiracy to enslave mankind does nothing to acknowledge the fact it's already here. It's always been here, people are just viewing it with a fresh, schizophrenic attitude.

The government doesn't care about people, we're a drop in the bucket. They go to the source, of pollution and money.

There's a lot of heresy in this thread and the OP is a heretic!

The science is settled.

Anyone spreading ideas that we are trying to use man's fear of traumatic weather events for control and personal gain is a shill and their language is dangerous. Deniers of our scientific beliefs are evil scum who if found themselves in a burning theater would attempt to convince their fellow patrons to remain seated, there is no fire, even as the smoke enveloped the oxygen around them. That is the nature of the deniers, the spreaders of heresy against government funded and controlled science.

The science is proven! The science proves that if we don't throw 77,000 Jews into mount Kilauea once every six weeks there will be super volcanoes on every continent. The science also states that we must drown 132,000 Ethiopians semi-annually on the solstices or a world drought causing famine will occur. We must mandate all teenage virgins to please and submit their bodies to the desires of the men and women of science; we must do this because the climate models states that if we don't all of mankind will become sterile in 7 years, 2 months, 3 days, 4 hours, and 37 seconds from riiiiight NOW! OMG LEMMINGS PANIC! PAAAAAANIC! Oops, I meant OMS not OMG, as in Oh my Science PAAAANIC!!!

We must all sacrifice for the greater good of our technologically advanced climate pattern weather algorithm that can only tell you with about 50% accuracy if it will rain in your neighborhood on July 7th 2014.

Stop denying and start sacrificing to the common good! Oh, and we get to tell you what the common good is...and the common good says to fall in line and get with program, you plebe.

Feeling froggy today...

originally posted by: DerbyGawker
a reply to: Logarock

Do you think the government is ever going to directly tax you for CO2? Ridiculous. The amount of effort to directly tax every individual for every conceivable point of pollution is absurdly high.

Yeah, we would need to mandate the installation of things such as "smart meters" that could track specific daily energy usage. We would need environmental monitors in your car or force you to fuel the energy in your car with something like electricity that can be tracked by such a smart meter. Of course, we'd have to enact reasonable "untaxed" usage, like every household on a daily basis gets one hour computer time, 10 miles daily commute, 5 gallons of water, and 7 hours of light before the carbon taxes kick in.... but all of this is dependent on A. A Gullible Population and B. Smart Meter Technology which we are hundreds of years away from achieving.

Yeah it would be hard, but thankfully with fascism we can control precisely how businesses can operate and they'll pass down their carbon tax expenditures down to the consumer. If we charge your local power company 200 million dollars they have to get it from somewhere...

If you disagree, it's only because you're a racist.

What's new.

I struggle to find something that isn't infested with corruption/power/money.

I'll look out of my window for the weather, thanks.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: MarlinGrace


I read your link and it said

it made $275 billion available for federal contracts, grants and loans [source: Recovery.gov]. Of that money, $16.8 billion was allocated to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) to fund its core initiatives, including seven programs listed under the umbrella of "renewable energy projects." They were:

You claimed there are 100s of billions in grants.

I may not be the smartest person in the room, but I do know a loan and a grant are two different things. I have also read that many renewable project loans have already been repaid such as Tesla. I would really like to know if you have the sources telling exactly how much went to grants as you claimed because as I said I looked, but couldn't substantiate your claim.

As far as the investment in your link where it says.

In 2010, the DOE invested $80 million of Recovery Act money in advanced biofuels research and fueling infrastructure for the development of a clean transportation sector [source: EERE].

In 2009, the DOE spent over $30 million to modernize seven of the nation's largest hydroelectric facilities [source: EERE].

Also in 2009, the DOE invested $338 million for researched into advanced geothermal technologies and the exploration of domestic geothermal fields [source: DOE].

Now Bureaucracy and special interests are sure to get in the way I am sure but those investments have netted results which can secure our future which I have already put together in a thread.www.abovetopsecret.com...

Energy independence and cheaper fuel at the pump sounds pretty good to me. Or we could build more pipelines and not be any better than we are now. It doesn't seem like a hard choice to me, but I am not in politics.

Ok we can read things differently, and I have looked for other sources but you can find a number of sites with various numbers, and of course loans and grants are different but I think we are at somewhere around 30 companies like solyndra that went belly up and didn't repay those loans. Solyndra was good for 500M that would make it a grant in my book. They added up to 80 Billion.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

So you are saying you can't find anything showing 100s of billions in grants and even when you add up the faltering loans it doesn't equal 100s of billions. With those faltering loans I am sure you probably haven't looked into how much each has paid back either. Would I be correct? Even Solyndra the worst of them all is paying or has paid back some so it is pretty obvious we are not even close o the 100s of billions as claimed.


I am not sure whether you are admitting you made a mistake or you are trying to double down like politicians do when caught. No one respects politicians though.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: MarlinGrace

So you are saying you can't find anything showing 100s of billions in grants and even when you add up the faltering loans it doesn't equal 100s of billions. With those faltering loans I am sure you probably haven't looked into how much each has paid back either. Would I be correct? Even Solyndra the worst of them all is paying or has paid back some so it is pretty obvious we are not even close o the 100s of billions as claimed.


I am not sure whether you are admitting you made a mistake or you are trying to double down like politicians do when caught. No one respects politicians though.

lol ok now calling me a politician that's fighting words. I don't think it's a mistake so much, the first source says over 200 billion with 16.8 billion to create a new government office. that's still 100's. If you add up the losers at 80b and 16.8 that's 96.8 are you trying to saying they didn't spend any more than that? Because if they did that would make it over 100 easy. Grants, loans, contracts still come from taxpayers. These useless R&D's piss money away like it's nothing.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

No I didn't call you a politician but it has been pointed out to you that your source talking about over 200 billion wasn't referring to just grants and it seems you ignored a post addressing the disbursements of monies.

Did you accidentally miss this post?www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: MarlinGrace

No I didn't call you a politician but it has been pointed out to you that your source talking about over 200 billion wasn't referring to just grants and it seems you ignored a post addressing the disbursements of monies.

Did you accidentally miss this post?www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do I understand you are quoting wiki as the source which is different than the one I quoted, and you want to argue about source content?

a reply to: MarlinGrace

Was I arguing or questioning sources?


You seem awfully defensive. Ever since I asked you if you were doubling down on the rhetoric of the 100s of billions in grants figure you pulled out of nowhere.

So lets summarize. You cant produce evidence backing up the 100s of billions in grants claim even if you add in loans to businesses that are faltering and that's not even taking into consideration what has been paid back from those loans and because some figures came from wiki you are not even going to address them.

I think that sums things up. Right now I am starting to think I am talking to a politician but you may surprise me by not skirting those issues.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: MarlinGrace

Was I arguing or questioning sources?


You seem awfully defensive. Ever since I asked you if you were doubling down on the rhetoric of the 100s of billions in grants figure you pulled out of nowhere.

So lets summarize. You cant produce evidence backing up the 100s of billions in grants claim even if you add in loans to businesses that are faltering and that's not even taking into consideration what has been paid back from those loans and because some figures came from wiki you are not even going to address them.

I think that sums things up. Right now I am starting to think I am talking to a politician but you may surprise me by not skirting those issues.

So explain how this is decided, is it your source or mine? Which can be trusted? Will it always be a battle of sources?
I give you a source that says 275b and you offer one different, now what? I am not being political at all. This government waste money like there is no end and this is just another example of waste on a grand scale with a do good idea that is fantasy. Solar/renewable might work on individual basis when it can be afforded but for the masses it isn't going to happen until; you can store large sums of energy, no matter how much money you throw at it.

And if most people don't have two nickels to rub together, many million on assistance and we are over spent 17T, what's the logic here? I did provide a source rather you agree with it or not.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

I never said the information contained within your source was in question but as I have already said to you the total amount given was not for grants alone.

With so much support from the federal government, it's an excellent time to be in the clean energy business. In 2010, global investment in clean energy research was up 30 percent from 2009 at a total of $243 billion.

Again grants and loans are not the same thing I even conceded you can use the amounts in loans as your other source said were faltering but even combining those figures you did not reach your figure of 100s of billions.

The term 100s of billions means there is at least 2 sums of 100 billion.

I will also point out that list of faltering companies and the sum provided in loans to them that even with the ones that have failed will or are paying back if they have filled bankruptcy. We may not get it all back but we will get some as I have also pointed out already even the worst of the bunch Solyndra will or is paying back a portion of what was loaned.

Maybe you misunderstood all of this which I have already said before but now this should be crystal clear.

So again can you provide evidence in the 100s of billions in grants claim you made and you can even include the sums of in loans to the faltering companies without subtracting what has been recovered from those?