House Science Committee tweets embarrassing climate change tweet

it's fine, though i appreciate the retraction

one of the longlasting problems with authority work, i'm afraid- the flaws and ****ups are easiest to see

 

Make pox forums great again!

Remove mods 2017

 

If I am given control I will restore the forums to order! I will remove the upper class of mods and can almost guarantee no-one dies!

 

I'd vote for you over the other mods for the off chance that you ban you know who ... despite you being an awful mod.

It's like supporting terrorists to get rid of dictators :>

 

Gressen wouldn't ban me. he'd lose his reason for posting.

 

if i could ban people, my mod powers would likely have been stripped from me by now

 

It's the American way!

 

Science gets hosed by politicians yet again. This is exactly why saying "but muh science" is NOT a valid argument.

I believe in global climate change, and I want lots of funding to continue for generations. Politicians demanding even more Trillions of $$$ is less than convincing.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/cong...d-top-scientist-advance-climate-change-plans/

 

Looks like that scientist admitted radiation was dangerous which I believe you and others repeatedly claim is the way to go forward off of fossil fuels.

I also doubt those sources are free of bias.

 

Nobody is free of bias, unfortunately.

I imagine that nuclear and hydro and green will be the path forward. Maybe some new fangled tech will save the day. We cannot stay on fossil for all that much longer. Anyone know the approximate number of decades that we have left of dinosaur juice?

 

depends on how willing people are to go to war over the north and south pole, falklands, and the south china sea.

I agree that they should not have fired the scientist for honesty, but hey I already told you that your politics are screwy and since solar and wind keep getting blocked from being develloped further nuclear would indeed as is so often stated (mostly as lol dumb people to go green we need to use NUKULAR cause solar not develloped and wind ugly) fill a gap.

but to me this seems like you are selective and painting the entire 'green' movement as liars while neglecting to see the lies on the other side of the coin.

 

The word "free" was supposed to be "green" in my post just above yours. I am guessing which is the best path, of course. But pursuing many leads, including the greener ones, makes sense. Agreed? The predicted % of green energy that will be employed by 2050 is less than 5%, which I find kinda depressing. What thinkest thou?

 

in the US or globally? Croatia got up to 28% green. Dutch is second last of the EU countries with 14% predicted in 2020 which would be 6% below the agreement

 

anyways globally that could be with rising energy demands in the third world which really throws global percentages. I hope that increase in the use and advances in green tech here would make it viable to deploy in third world countries too.

but if that % is for the US for 2050, then you are just not adopting/adapting/applying the technology at an adequate pace.

 

I mean, just to clarify...

Oil is not made from fossils. I assume you and most everyone else already knows this, I just want to make sure.

As far as estimates go... part of the problem is that "new" oil deposits are still being found, as well as new methods of extracting further from prior deposits or ones that were previously inaccessible for retrieval, to say nothing of potential fluctuations of demand if/when developing nations get the means to start massive use of the substance. So while there is a limit based on how slowly crude oil is generated via natural processes vs. consumption rates, is still not clear how long it will last.

 

http://krilloil.com/research/oil-not-exactly-dead-dinosaurs/

Great refresher article, at least it was for me.

 

Agreed, I'm just stating that there are no solid time-frames to reach "peak oil" due to new discoveries, technologies, demands, etc. all shifting the equation. In fact, another factor would be gaining increased energy production from alternative sources; which can increase the time-frame for how long oil can last as demand reduces in certain areas (though also if it reduces enough it can slow down both technological and other innovations that would extend the use of it as it loses profitability and funding for such projects goes elsewhere).

 

This is how it looks when a Trump advisor talks about climate change