July 2016 Was The Hottest Month Ever Recorded

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Why is it that liberals idea of bipartisan cooperation is for conservatives to just agree with liberals?

Pollution is a problem. I agree with that.

This 1000 times!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
but almost ALL of it is red or reddish. Keep in mind the southern hemisphere is supposed to be in winter.

For starters, South Africa is always dry from as early as mid March to mid September, hence the bush fires around July.

From March 1997 - Sept 1997 it was overcast in Johannesburg for 5 days and rained on 3 of them. i only took note because for a Brit, it was a British summers day almost every day with frost every winters morning.

As for Cornwall, SW England this year, we had 2 days in July of real good summer weather. 2 freaking pitiful days. Hell it was hotter during 1977.

The longer America keeps sinning, the more demons from fiery hell set up camp in America. That is why America is burning, the daemons are bringing hell with them.

The more you repel Jesus, the hotter the flames gets. Enjoy.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Columbia University's attempt to save the world.

From 2004 to 2008, Lackner and Wright used startup funding to create an air capture prototype, but in the recession they failed to secure more venture capital.

They're being kind.

I remember when Columbia University announced the technology. I was excited, along with other researchers around the globe. Then came the stories about how removing carbon dioxide from the air wouldn't fix the 'problem' with too much carbon dioxide. The public outcry against the technology, driven by dishonest media attention, was the reason the money dried up.

Apparently Klaus is stubborn enough to still be going. Good. I wish him success. He's probably the single most known example of what we are going to be up against. There have been plenty of others, many who never got past an initial publication before having funds suddenly disappear and being forced out.

Do you really think other researchers didn't notice this? Do you really think we can't see the plan? Nothing will receive funding after publication unless it assists in implementing carbon taxes, unless it is sufficiently ready for immediate commercialization. Even then, it's going to be an uphill battle.

That makes sense to us.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you for that. I truly was unaware of any other solutions to this mess. I was reasonably sure they are being researched and looked into, but no one ever talks about them. Though I think the reasons for that is slightly different than the reasons you said. Though you probably have a kernel of truth in there too. I'm not going to deny that powerful egos aren't behind climate change solutions and those egos want their solutions implemented.

I just don't fault climate change research for the egos of the politicians trying to wet their whistle. Which is what many Republicans do, which feeds into the lack of research. I mean if we had more than just one political organization pitching climate solutions, then it reasons that the money available for solutions research would be greater. If your solution doesn't gel with the liberals' ideas then you can seek funding from the conservatives. But the way things are now, it's pretty much just the liberals (Democrats but mostly the Green Party) you can only seek funding from. So you are the mercy of their egos.

originally posted by: Rapha
The longer America keeps sinning, the more demons from fiery hell set up camp in America. That is why America is burning, the daemons are bringing hell with them.

The more you repel Jesus, the hotter the flames gets. Enjoy.

Um... What?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't fault nor discount climatologists' research... in any way. They are tackling a massively complex system with an astronomical number of natural controls. They are developing models, slowly but surely, in an attempt to understand.

Look at any published report. It states which feedbacks are being considered, how they are implemented in the model, how well the model performed compared to actual data, and what predictions the model gave. Thus far, the models are not in good agreement with all the data, but that doesn't stop the reports of doom and gloom reported as being from 'scientific models' without mentioning the shortcomings of the models. These gloom and doom predictions are then picked up by politicians to use, leveraging the newly-energized public fear, to advance agendas. The scientists get funded because their models performed as desired instead of correctly, and the cycle repeats.

They are probably afraid to get too close to accurate. If the models stop predicting disaster, they know the funding will dry up.

I work officially in research now, so I constantly talk with other researchers. But to be honest, my job is not in energy research. My work in that field is, as it has always been for 30-odd years, self-funded. It's probably going to stay that way. That means it progresses very slowly, but it also means, worst case, I will at least have power when everyone else's lights go out. Best case is, and has always been, to power the planet cleanly, but the longer people cry for carbon taxes, the less likely that is to happen.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Um... What?

i said on ATS back in March 2016 and December 2015, that all hell is going to break lose this year. However, as always, atheists are blind to this fact.

Your response sums it all up perfectly. These are happy days compared to what is coming.

Secondly, have you taken this 'climate change' and rammed it down Congress throats yet ? Ranting the same info on ATS will only allow the demons to continue laughing at you.

You will not do anything and in 2 months you will post another 'climate change' thread with the same yawn doom porn.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Well I'm open to any idea that looks sound and will look like it will fix our problems, plus is feasible to implement. It doesn't have to be carbon taxes. I just want everyone on board with the solutions idea so we can get a better crop of solutions than just the one to choose from.

originally posted by: 191stMIDET

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: intrptr

Only in certain parts o the world but in others it was one of the coolest months every recorded Like Virginia usa

Yah, here temperatures were actually lower than 'normal', its been warm every day but no blazing hot days during July and August.

It's been hot but honestly we had higher peak temperatures last summer. What's killing me this summer is the Crazy @$$ storms and rain almost every other day. I'm thrifty five and I've lived in The Richmond Metro area my entire life and I have NEVER seen a summer this wet. It's like we're living in southeast Asia.

I wish we had some of that. California is always dry. Not the mountains, not the coast, the bay areas.

originally posted by: Rapha

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Um... What?

i said on ATS back in March 2016 and December 2015, that all hell is going to break lose this year. However, as always, atheists are blind to this fact.

Your response sums it all up perfectly. These are happy days compared to what is coming.

Vague predictions of calamity don't make you a prophet. They just make you able to point out the inevitable. Of course there will be conflict in the future. There is ALWAYS conflict. That's like pointing out that grass is green.

Secondly, have you taken this 'climate change' and rammed it down Congress throats yet ? Ranting the same info on ATS will only allow the demons to continue laughing at you.

There are already people doing just that more efficiently and better funded than I could hope to achieve.

You will not do anything and in 2 months you will post another 'climate change' thread with the same yawn doom porn.

And you will still have your head in the sand; promoting silly magical conspiracy theories about morality. "...and the world turns."

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The only way to get more solutions open, at this point, is to completely and absolutely reject the concept of a carbon tax en masse. If that were to happen, the political influence would stop, the doom predictions would no longer be profitable, the climatologists wouldn't have to worry about ensuring 'proper' results, and other researchers would start feeling secure enough to release their work.

That's just not going to happen. It is what it is.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm banking on Exxon's lawsuit producing some results that allow us to proceed similarly to how we proceeded after the cigarette companies were sued after being found to be complicit in hiding the link to cigarettes and cancer. Exxon is guilty of an almost like-for-like situation in covering up that it knew about the link between CO2 and global warming but put out publicly that there was no link.

originally posted by: Rapha

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
but almost ALL of it is red or reddish. Keep in mind the southern hemisphere is supposed to be in winter.

The longer America keeps sinning, the more demons from fiery hell set up camp in America. That is why America is burning, the daemons are bringing hell with them.

The more you repel Jesus, the hotter the flames gets. Enjoy.

Erm, what again? Climate change is driven by sin???
.............
What???

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Rapha

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
but almost ALL of it is red or reddish. Keep in mind the southern hemisphere is supposed to be in winter.

The longer America keeps sinning, the more demons from fiery hell set up camp in America. That is why America is burning, the daemons are bringing hell with them.

The more you repel Jesus, the hotter the flames gets. Enjoy.

Erm, what again? Climate change is driven by sin???
.............
What???

I hope he's trolling the thread.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The only way to get more solutions open, at this point, is to completely and absolutely reject the concept of a carbon tax en masse. If that were to happen, the political influence would stop, the doom predictions would no longer be profitable, the climatologists wouldn't have to worry about ensuring 'proper' results, and other researchers would start feeling secure enough to release their work.

That's just not going to happen. It is what it is.

TheRedneck

In the same way that removing a tax on tobacco or alcohol would lead to more reasonable scientific research showing that neither tobacco nor alcohol are harmful and we can smoke and drink to our hearts content

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheRedneck

Well I'm open to any idea that looks sound and will look like it will fix our problems, plus is feasible to implement. It doesn't have to be carbon taxes. I just want everyone on board with the solutions idea so we can get a better crop of solutions than just the one to choose from.

Wind are Solar are not currently feasible. They lack the efficiency needed for the power sector.

Carbon taxes are not helpful. We can't punish the petroleum sector when it is the only thing powering the science, technology and research that can take us to the next breakthrough.

The electric car option is not a fix when the power still must come from power plants, are not good for long-term travel and cannot power construction vehicles and cargo planes/ships.

The Obama administration has been incredibly short sighted with technology like hydrogen cells.

www.sciencemag.org...

If we are going to get off Earth and set up colonies on the Moon, Mars, etc and explore the stars we have to take the long view on non-peteroleum sources that work and have maximum bang for the buck.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm banking on Exxon's lawsuit producing some results that allow us to proceed similarly to how we proceeded after the cigarette companies were sued after being found to be complicit in hiding the link to cigarettes and cancer. Exxon is guilty of an almost like-for-like situation in covering up that it knew about the link between CO2 and global warming but put out publicly that there was no link.

That's a crap lawsuit and people with common sense know it.

double

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm banking on Exxon's lawsuit producing some results that allow us to proceed similarly to how we proceeded after the cigarette companies were sued after being found to be complicit in hiding the link to cigarettes and cancer. Exxon is guilty of an almost like-for-like situation in covering up that it knew about the link between CO2 and global warming but put out publicly that there was no link.

That's a crap lawsuit and people with common sense know it.

Thanks for the heads up, Mr. Internet Lawyer. I'm glad I get my legal advise from ATS. How could I go wrong?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then you are banking on a loss.

There is no winner in that action, save those in power. If the lawsuit fails, ExxonMobil and the other oil companies will increase revenues to hedge against future legal costs. That will raise the price of energy overall, because, as was previously pointed out, there is no commercially-ready replacement for oil. That will further depress the economy, placing more people on government assistance, and will further solidify the Federal government's control over the population.

If the lawsuit succeeds, ExxonMobil and the other oil companies will quite probably stop or at least severely curtail, oil imports and refinements in the US. We have already seen such a shift in focus from the tobacco companies toward overseas markets. Faced with such a vast energy shortage, one that could turn the US into a third-world country almost overnight, the Federal government will have little choice but to nationalize energy. To date, there has not been a single example of the government being able to compete with business in a commercial environment. Energy will be rationed, probably denied to many who disagree with official policy, completely solidifying control over the people.

Either way, you and I lose; government wins. You can bank on that

TheRedneck