Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Judged:

3

3

3

SpaceBlues wrote:

LOL. Thw dumb think the USA is the whole planet.

Judged:

2

2

2

mememine69 wrote:

The scientists only agree that; “climate change is real”, not a disaster and offer no consensus at all on it being a deadly threat to the planet. And that is quite understandable considering that there are thousands of scientists with thousands of unique opinions on “assumed effects”.
There isn't one source anywhere that says all scientists or 97% etc. all agree that climate chaos is inevitable and death for all. And surrounding words like; “catastrophic” with “maybes” and “could be’s” is not consensus.
IF there was consensus that the scientists had condemned their own children as well to a CO2 death, wouldn’t the millions of people in the global scientific community be acting like they had doomed families as well?

Judged:

1

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

<quoted text>
Courtesy of massive cash losses on the US housing and financial scams. I would advise them not to be fooled twice as the US has shown itself to be on the SAME track again.
And always suspect an 'economic analysis' by Dirtling. He ignores the main problem which is shutting down of a lot of nuclear power which has increased reliance on fossil fuels. Of course, fossil fuels account for 80% to 90% of EU power generation so of course the emissions are rising as the amount of fossil fuel used to replace the nuclear power goes up in the short term.
Bring back nuclear power (but safe reactors such as CANDU, Thorium salt, pebble bed, etc.

Judged:

2

2

2

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Regardless, the Y2K bug was in the legacy software NOT in the processor. Two char fields. And a lot of the code no longer had source to modify.
Y2K was a real problem. And the fact that we 'fixed' it before it struck and it was not a 'trillion dollar fiasco' as the doomsayers claimed shows that we CAN do 'preventative changes' for other problems such as AGW for a lot less than the hysterical 'back to the caves' rhetoric would suggest.

Judged:

2

2

2

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Indeed. But that was a side issue, not the meat. Try reading it again.
<quoted text>
Earthing didn't 'address' anything. He implied, spun, wiggled and really said nothing. The point *I* made was that even though there was a small slowdown in the economy, more fossil fuels were used because of the major decrease in nuclear power generation.
<quoted text>
Pulling claims out of your posterior just sets up 'strawmen'.
<quoted text>
It increased because the MIX of fuels went towards fossil fuels with the shutdown of so many nuclear plants. And no. Coal still competes on *price* with nuclear, so there is little difference in the economics. Only emissions are affected in the short term.
And it takes time to shift to alternatives while you can drop major generating capacity in a few days with a 'political commitment'.

Judged:

2

2

2

mememine69 wrote:

There isn't one source anywhere that says all scientists or 97% etc. all agree that climate chaos is inevitable and death for all. And surrounding words like; “catastrophic” with “maybes” and “could be’s” is not consensus.

Judged:

2

2

1

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
You're right for once. The consensus is that we are cooking the climate, there is an urgent need to stop doing so, and if we don't stop there will be "serious" consequences.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+...
How serious? The oddsmakers are currently giving one in six that we're causing a civilization-threatening catastrophe. Those are Russian roulette odds, with many millions of lives and trillions of dollars at stake. The difference between this and Russian roulette is that in addition to one absolutely fatal round in the revolver, there are also two or three rounds that will merely wound society, killing only a few million and severely damaging but not destroying the global economy.
What could possibly be worth playing a game like that?

Judged:

1

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
You're right for once. The consensus is that we are cooking the climate, there is an urgent need to stop doing so, and if we don't stop there will be "serious" consequences.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+...
How serious? The oddsmakers are currently giving one in six that we're causing a civilization-threatening catastrophe. Those are Russian roulette odds, with many millions of lives and trillions of dollars at stake. The difference between this and Russian roulette is that in addition to one absolutely fatal round in the revolver, there are also two or three rounds that will merely wound society, killing only a few million and severely damaging but not destroying the global economy.
What could possibly be worth playing a game like that?

Judged:

3

3

3

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
No practical alternative.

Judged:

2

2

2

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
There's "no practical alternative" to putting all of civilization at grave risk?
Of course not. Not if you're to maintain your gas-guzzling lifestyle.

Judged:

2

2

2

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
There's "no practical alternative" to putting all of civilization at grave risk?
Of course not. Not if you're to maintain your gas-guzzling lifestyle.

Judged:

1

1

1

Nauseous wrote:

There's "no practical alternative" to putting all of civilization at grave risk?
Of course not. Not if you're to maintain your gas-guzzling lifestyle.

Judged:

2

1

1

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
There's "no practical alternative" to putting all of civilization at grave risk?
Of course not. Not if you're to maintain your gas-guzzling lifestyle.

Judged:

1

1

1

Teddy R wrote:

Ruh roh ... Another torpedo midships ...
"1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today"
"But nobody thought it was a big deal"
By Lewis Page
Posted in Science, 2nd June 2012 09:07 GMT
"Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/02/1930s...

Judged:

1

1

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
There's "no practical alternative" to putting all of civilization at grave risk?
Of course not. Not if you're to maintain your gas-guzzling lifestyle.

Judged:

3

2

2

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
You're right for once. The consensus is that we are cooking the climate, there is an urgent need to stop doing so, and if we don't stop there will be "serious" consequences.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+...
How serious? The oddsmakers are currently giving one in six that we're causing a civilization-threatening catastrophe. Those are Russian roulette odds, with many millions of lives and trillions of dollars at stake. The difference between this and Russian roulette is that in addition to one absolutely fatal round in the revolver, there are also two or three rounds that will merely wound society, killing only a few million and severely damaging but not destroying the global economy.
What could possibly be worth playing a game like that?

Judged:

2

2

2

Teddy R wrote:

Ruh roh ... Another torpedo midships ...
"1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today"
"But nobody thought it was a big deal"
By Lewis Page
Posted in Science, 2nd June 2012 09:07 GMT
"Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/02/1930s...