Question for Algore supporters (those who believe CO2 affects Earth climate change)

The IPCC dropped it. Had to. Bad science. Live with it.

 

When will they ??

 

Developing countries continue to build SOME fossil fuel plants. But we are also encouraging the building of alternative fuel technologies with the goal to someday switch over to that.

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Not the IPCC, they produce the bible on Global warming. How the heck do the cults go on?

 

Like GOP legislators, "I am not a scientist, but..." One pole sits on water, and the other sits on a continental land mass. Anyway, it doesn't matter. The truth will be painfully obvious a lot more quickly than people think.

 

The hockey stick no longer is in the bible of Global Warming. The data and reconstruction short centering statistics have been conclusively discredited.

The hockey stick which contradicted thousands of previous scientific papers was adopted by the alarmists because the shaft of the stick "got rid of" the Medieval Warm Period in which the global temperature was higher than it is now. The IPCC ignored the scientific method which requires the hockey stick to be challenged and adopted it without question. And ten years later it's not referred to by the IPCC. Some alarmist zealots however keep worshiping the stick resulting in third world countries around the world getting the shaft.

 

Why would we encourage and why would any third world country waste capital on energy production facilities with ~ 30% capacity factor. How many third world lives will be lost because of this encouragement which take the form of strings attached to energy grants.

 

Not as many as would be lost to the effects of AGW.

 

The present is reality whilst the future predictions of climate models are speculation. Lives will be lost in the present on the application of the precautionary principle based on the worst case scenarios of climate models which fail to correlate to the historical record. Present loss of live is then collateral damage and necessary because of political restrictions on the use of fossil fuel power plants in developing nations. And these restrictions will have no significant reduction of the global average temperature in the year 2100.

This is what is "forked" up about the UNFCCC/IPCC alarmism. The policies proposed will have no effect on the global average temperature but will adversely affect economic growth and the ability to adapt and respond to climate variation and change. Lives will be lost for nothing.

 

We could increase efficiency of fossil fuels and thus "save more lives" if we remove all environmental restrictions. But we don't. Why?

 

Gore has really become an embarrassment to you guys hasn't he. I wonder how he likes it under that bus.

 

Firstly I'm talking about third world countries.

In the US the EPA regulations regarding coal fired power plants are based on a medical study which the EPA has refused to release. Coal fired power plants are being shutdown for nothing.

 

Why are third world countries being encouraged to have environmental restrictions on coal plants. Eliminate them and they would "save lives". Right?

 

Having access to electricity 24/7/365 saves lives. 1.3 billion global citizens do not have access to electricity.

 

So why do countries have environmental restrictions that reduce acces to electricity?

 

Why does not the UNFCCC/IPCC who professes to be interested in saving human lives not promote fossil fueled power plants to replace open flame cooking stoves with electrical hot plates for those 1.3 billion who have no access to electrical power. A general circulation climate model is not needed to provide the answer.

 

Are my questions too hard to answer? Lol

 

The answers are obvious - it's curious why they are asked.

 

So you are ok with countries not "saving lives" by using environmental restrictions on coal plants. Lol

 

Will you alarmists please watch a world renowned scientist talk on warming?

[video=youtube;6PDNhzjE9I4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PDNhzjE9I4[/video]

 

I have ten MORE highly respected scientists than Lindzen for every one of him you have. LOL

 

Are you aware that Lindzen was the lead scientist for the 3rd IPCC report? And his comments are the warning people are alarmist.

 

You will be aware that Lindzen is a leading Climate Misinformer

 

Yes, we must purge those scientists that do not toe the new religion's tenets. Inconvenient science cannot be tolerated. Of course we will also have to ban observed science since it is not playing along nicely.

 

A response to Lindzens criticisms

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/lindzen-in-newsweek/

Lindzen himself has been the recipient of money from energy interests such as OPEC and the Western Fuels Association, including "$2,500 a day for his consulting services