• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hottest July on record in Sweden

Renewables and taking action against climate change are thankfully starting to become a bipartisan issue. For example Sweden passed bipartisan legislation that the country should be carbon neutral by 2045.

https://unfccc.int/news/sweden-plans-to-be-carbon-neutral-by-2045

While Denmark with a right wing government got 43 percent of their power from wind power in 2017 and plan to get half of all their energy needs met with renewables by 2030.

https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2018/0111/932573-denmark-wind-farm/

Norway have also a right wing government and half of new cars sales is electric or hybrid and the country have the goal of that all new cars should be zero emission vehicles by 2025.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ar-sales-now-electric-or-hybrid-idUSKBN1ES0WC

Renewables are also starting to become a bipartisan issue on a local level in the US. For example that wind or solar are already the cheapest option in most Republican congressional districts.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshua...n-leaders-love-renewable-energy/#631e530f3da7

Who cares what another nation spends more on. Instead of asking us to emulate them, just move there.

Wind is only cheaper due to subsidies in the USA.
 
Obama sailed into the renewable energy morass almost from day one. He fulfilled a campaign promise to shut down coal and jack up energy costs for poor people and others. He was a visionary. His administration mandated corn additives to fuels and then fined gasoline suppliers for not meeting the standards. Those artificial standards could not be reached since the additives were not even available in any amount for two years and then only available in very small amounts. His party kept the fines for themselves.

Everybody who has heard anything should have heard about his disastrous government expenditures on green energy companies which never survived in the free market after the government money ran out - companies like Solendra.

Green energy is a failed proposition if not propped up by heavy government mandates and financial support.

In real life, energy costs dropped significantly during Obama’s terms.

But you don’t seem to be into reality.
 
In real life, energy costs dropped significantly during Obama’s terms.

But you don’t seem to be into reality.

I never saw a drop. What is your proof?
 
I never saw a drop. What is your proof?

Seriously?

Natural gas prices plummeted. Renewables are much higher of a percentage, and as you guys bitch constantly about, government subsidies keep those prices low. Oil has has an epic crash with little recovery.

But you go with the guy who claims the Obama administration ‘pocketed fines for his party’. :roll:
 
Seriously?

Natural gas prices plummeted. Renewables are much higher of a percentage, and as you guys bitch constantly about, government subsidies keep those prices low. Oil has has an epic crash with little recovery.

But you go with the guy who claims the Obama administration ‘pocketed fines for his party’. :roll:

Oh....

You mean with subsides.

Just go away with your big government solutions that makes me pay more in taxes.

How dare you expect others to subsidize your fantasies?
 
Oh....

You mean with subsides.

Just go away with your big government solutions that makes me pay more in taxes.

How dare you expect others to subsidize your fantasies?

Well, no, subsidies are not the main reason for energy prices dropping.

I also never said it was my solution, and merely mentioned they exist.

But I guess you just realized that trying to argue markes point is futile, so you needed an out.
 
Well, no, subsidies are not the main reason for energy prices dropping.

I also never said it was my solution, and merely mentioned they exist.

But I guess you just realized that trying to argue markes point is futile, so you needed an out.

Have any facts to support your wild contention?
 
In real life, energy costs dropped significantly during Obama’s terms.

But you don’t seem to be into reality.

Let's just talk about gasoline prices for one example. Did gasoline prices rise under Obama? Yes. In some places the price of gasoline doubled under Obama from what it was before Obama.
 
Let's just talk about gasoline prices for one example. Did gasoline prices rise under Obama? Yes. In some places the price of gasoline doubled under Obama from what it was before Obama.

Yeah. Gas prices roughly halved in the six months before Obama took office, and were literally at historic lows when he took office.

But that wasn’t kind of triumph for conservatives, trust me.
 
Yeah. Gas prices roughly halved in the six months before Obama took office, and were literally at historic lows when he took office.

But that wasn’t kind of triumph for conservatives, trust me.

Obama promised before his first term to make fuel prices skyrocket if elected. Trust me.
 
Yes. Remember, we can’t know if it’s warming.

But, it’s not warming because You just ‘know’ it.

:roll:
We are not talking about warming but the energy imbalance required to "force" the warming.
 
Bush who didn’t sign the Kyoto protocol and stopped California’s emissions rules was president for eight years. There his presidency didn’t lead to government funded reports that showed alternative theories to manmade global from C02.

Federal agencies are also continuing to warn about the dangers of climate change under Trump’s presidency. Like for example also this report from the US Department of Defense.

“Nearly half of US military sites are threatened by wild weather linked to climate change, according to a new Pentagon study whose findings run contrary to White House views on global warming.

Drought, wind and flooding that occurs due to reasons other than storms topped the list of natural disasters that endanger 1,700 military sites worldwide, from large bases to outposts, said the US Department of Defense (DoD).”


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/31/climate-change-threatens-us-military-bases-pentagon

Trump have also tried to influence federal agencies like for example that he appointed a former climate denier as Nasa administrator. While Trump thankfully failed in that case because Jim Bridenstine had the intellectual honesty and open mindedness to learn the facts. So, he now fully believes in climate change and that we human beings are contributing to it in a major way.

https://www.space.com/40857-trumps-...n-climate-change-he-is-a-scientific-hero.html

If you only see what you want to see, you will only see what you want!
You still seem to be stuck on the idea that manmade global warming from C02, is or is not real,
the world is not digital. CO2 can force warming, the question has always been, "How Much"?
 
If you only see what you want to see, you will only see what you want!
You still seem to be stuck on the idea that manmade global warming from C02, is or is not real,
the world is not digital. CO2 can force warming, the question has always been, "How Much"?

The above is the tee-up to ‘lukewarming’ posturing.
 
Check the latest IPCC special report.
I have, and what they said was that no best estimate of ECS could be found because of
disagreement between the empirical data, and the modeled data.
We know what the lead authors found that did not make it into the final report, because they
published their findings in a letter to the editor of Nature.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
The most likely value of equilibrium
climate sensitivity based on the energy
budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C,
 
I have, and what they said was that no best estimate of ECS could be found because of
disagreement between the empirical data, and the modeled data.
We know what the lead authors found that did not make it into the final report, because they
published their findings in a letter to the editor of Nature.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf

I know you read a two page paper several years ago. We are all proud of you.

But there’s a special report that was published yesterday. And it doesn’t really jive with your position.

But then again, it’s not written by a bunch of anonymous engineers who have no experience in the field, so it has that going for it.
 
I know you read a two page paper several years ago. We are all proud of you.

But there’s a special report that was published yesterday. And it doesn’t really jive with your position.

But then again, it’s not written by a bunch of anonymous engineers who have no experience in the field, so it has that going for it.
Have you read the latest report?
https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/
It seems only a few sections mention ECS,
https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter1_annex.pdf
Radiative forcing that would give the temperature profiles is computed using
a 2-time-constant climate response function (Myhre et al., 2013b)
, with Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of 2.7°C
and Transient Climate Response (TCR) of 1.6°C
So they built their estimates using an ECS of 2.7 °C.
The new report is nothing really new, consider this paragraph.
Idealised temperature pathways computed by specifying the level of human
-
induced warming in 2017, 2017=1°C, with temperatures from 1850 to 2017 approximated by an exponential rise, with
the exponential rate constant, set to give a rate of human-induced warming in 2017 of
0.2°C/decade. Temperatures from 2018-2100 are determined by fitting a smooth 4th
-order polynomial through specified warming at particular times after 2017.
WOW they expect human-induced warming of 0.2°C/decade, which is odd considering that
very few periods in the 138 year record broke that level of warming.
The long term warming (GISS) is .071°C/decade 1880-2018.
decade averaged warming since 1998 being roughly same at .065 °C/decade
There were periods of per decade warming higher than .2°C/decade, but 5 years in 128 years that had a slightly higher decade rate
does not bring the average up by much.
FYI the years where the decade average broke .2°C/decade were
1944,1945,1946,1947, and 2010, with the level in 2010 being .207 °C/decade.
It becomes clear that the level of warming described as expected by the IPCC Report for the next
eigth decades in a row , is not common at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom