Other state AG's critique Healy Exxon lawsuit about climate change

71montess said:
Are you a well read, intelligent , critical thinking person ? Or a liberal DemocRAT ?
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.

Where we were sitting right now had Glaciers on it....and no automobiles, or human activity to warm the climate at that time to melt them. So someone please let me know how we can sit here and type. This is usually the first thing I say to a global warming alarmist and I get a blank stare.

Anybody that buys into this GW crap has rocks in their head.....total idiots. Biggest scam going, Dicaprio and Al Gore use 500 times the energy we do flying around to get their global warming agenda, living in their mansions, and being shuffled around in SUV's. But they want us to drive a ****ing smart car and conserve energy and be green. **** them.
 
Last edited:
Mark from MA said:
My thoughts exactly.

Where we were sitting right now had Glaciers on it....and no automobiles, or human activity to warm the climate at that time to melt them. So someone please let me know how we can sit here and type. This is usually the first thing I say to a global warming alarmist and I get a blank stare.

Anybody that buys into this GW crap has rocks in their head.....total idiots. Biggest scam going, Dicaprio and Al Gore use 500 times the energy we do flying around to get their global warming agenda, living in their mansions, and being shuffled around in SUV's. But they want us to drive a ****ing smart car and conserve energy and be green. **** them.
Click to expand...

I hope I'm still alive when we get glaciers back here again!! Buy stock in Ski-doo/Bombadier!!!
 
I am thankful every day for global warming. If it wasn't for global warming, I would be sitting under 300 feet of ice.

It has been a lot hotter on earth (many times) and a lot colder (many times) and absolutely NONE of those cycles had any anthropogenic cause. Do I believe that man is having an affect on climate right now? Sure, could be. But to believe that man can control the climate and reverse any change man has induced AND over-ride any natural temperature cycle is pure arrogance. Sorry, folks, we can't even come close to affecting the climate on the scale of what the sun and the earth are capable of without us. We are only along for the ride.

-Gary
 
Nobody denies "climate change", it's how much man contributes and what to do about it. The left has adopted this crusade as a religion and anyone not on board the Al Gore bandwagon is deemed an ignorant moron. I'm 61 yrs old and the country is a hell of a lot cleaner now than when I was a kid. Boston harbor was an open sewer, the Charles river was polluted as well as most rivers and streams. We never saw deer, turkeys or hawks, now they're everywhere. Smoke stacks no longer belch harmful pollution into the sky's, there are more trees in Ma. today than there were 200 yrs ago. Solar and wind power contribute minuscule electricity to the nation/world but the leftists like Gore and Steyer want to cripple the country w/excessive legislation that will accomplish little. Trump was right to pull out of the Paris accord because were getting stuck w/the bill and the Chinese wouldn't be doing any reductions until 2030. Just another left wing Dem crusade to weaken the country and integrate us w/the Global elite.
 
rwl1955 said:
Nobody denies "climate change", it's how much man contributes and what to do about it. The left has adopted this crusade as a religion and anyone not on board the Al Gore bandwagon is deemed an ignorant moron. ...
Click to expand...

Don't worry, once they figure out the anthropoloppulatpanation crap isn't gaining any traction, they'll shift gears again and find yet another angle that NOW completely explains it all. At least until that, too is proven to be malarkey.

Meanwhile, Al and Cosmo can pull their remaining hair out fretting about imaginary ghouls under their beds while we sip mai tais on our new ocean front properties, 20 miles inland from Boston [laugh]

And remember: Save the shoreline. Save the world.
 
71montess said:
Are you a well read, intelligent , critical thinking person ? Or a liberal DemocRAT ?
Click to expand...

Any of you NES brainiacs care to offer up an alternative hypothesis and some measure of scientific data to back up your ideas on how the climate is changing?

The overwhelming consensus of scientists who actually study this find climate change to be real and a threat. Just stomping your feed and saying "nuh-uh, (insert irrelevant anecdote here)" is not an argument. Any half wit can do that.

Being a contrarian isn't a sign of intelligence, it is just a sign of laziness and lack of education.
 
Science is not done by consensus - the climate is orders of magnitude more complicated than we understand so our models are not much more than SWAGs.

A new hypothesis is generated every time the climate disproves the then current model and Alchemist believes we should sacrifice our future to the current best guess.
 
Alchemist27 said:
Any of you NES brainiacs care to offer up an alternative hypothesis and some measure of scientific data to back up your ideas on how the climate is changing?

The overwhelming consensus of scientists who actually study this find climate change to be real and a threat. Just stomping your feed and saying "nuh-uh, (insert irrelevant anecdote here)" is not an argument. Any half wit can do that.

Being a contrarian isn't a sign of intelligence, it is just a sign of laziness and lack of education.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you asked that question, Al. May I call you Al? Adding chemist27 takes so many extra keystrokes.

I don't consider myself a brainiac, but I do know a few. Also, although I disagree with a lot of their policy and politics, I think we can all agree that NASA has a bunch of smart people working for them. People that some of us (me for instance) would call brainiacs. Although I prefer the term "rocket scientists".

So what does NASA have to say on the subject?

From their FAQ on the sun (I thought it would seem pretentious to quote an official study / paper), found at https://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sun.html

At its distance of 1 Astronomical Unit (150 million km), the Earth is hit by the Sun's energy flux F = 1400 Joules/s/m2. We call this quantity the "solar constant", as this value averaged over each year is constant within better than 1% over time. With an Earth radius of approx 6400 km, the area, which is (pi * Earth's radius)2, with which the Earth intercepts sunlight is (pi * Earth's radius)2 = 1.3 x 1014 m2 making the amount of energy captured by the Earth each second:

F * (pi * Earth's radius)2 = 1.8 x 1017 Joules/s
Click to expand...

I do not know Eberhard. He's a Doctor so he's probably one of the brainiacs. (My dad actually was a for real rocket scientist, Phd and all, but he never went by "Dr.". He was always just Dad to me, or, coincidentally, Al to most other people - NO NES, Al is NOT my father!)

According to an article on Wikipedia, which is NOT necessarily by a brainiac (or maybe it is - I didn't check to see if the author was a Phd), the world primary energy supply amounted to 155,481 terawatt-hour (TWh) in 2014.

So the units are different and maybe I'll screw it up, but let's take a shot.

We know that the whole world produced 155,481 terawatt-hour (TWh) of energy (all types, coal, oil, nuclear, solar, etc.) in 2014.

We know that the sun outputs 1.8 x 10^17 Joules/s (well, really a WHOLE lot more, that's just the amount of energy the sun hits US with!)



First, let's get that 155PWh reduced. That turns out to be 17.75 TWh in a day. Now, I really wouldn't be surprised if I totally bollixed that one, so please feel free to do the math yourself! I'm only human.

P(W) = E(J) / t(s)
So
watt = joule / second
or
W = J / s

So, 1.8 x 10^17 Joules/s is basically 1.8 x 10^17 Watts

So, 180,000,000 TW or 259,200,000,000 TWh received by the Earth, from the Sun, in the course of one day.

So, according to you and the High Priest Gore, the WHOLE WORLD'S ENERGY PRODUCTION of 17.75 THh is causing more change than the 259,200,000,000 TWh we catch each day just from the sun.

Yeah, I'm TOTALLY worried about replacing my HumVee with a Prius.


Please, ALL The math was ballpark. I'm PROBABLY WRONG. But if I'm wrong by several orders of magnitude, I still am not trading in the dinosaur fueled monster truck.
 
Alchemist27 said:
Any of you NES brainiacs care to offer up an alternative hypothesis and some measure of scientific data to back up your ideas on how the climate is changing?

The overwhelming consensus of scientists who actually study this find climate change to be real and a threat. Just stomping your feed and saying "nuh-uh, (insert irrelevant anecdote here)" is not an argument. Any half wit can do that.

Being a contrarian isn't a sign of intelligence, it is just a sign of laziness and lack of education.
Click to expand...

There jobs depend on spewing anything to keep the pay checks coming. Just like politicians
 
namedpipes said:
I'm glad you asked that question, Al. May I call you Al? Adding chemist27 takes so many extra keystrokes.

I don't consider myself a brainiac, but I do know a few. Also, although I disagree with a lot of their policy and politics, I think we can all agree that NASA has a bunch of smart people working for them. People that some of us (me for instance) would call brainiacs. Although I prefer the term "rocket scientists".

So what does NASA have to say on the subject?

From their FAQ on the sun (I thought it would seem pretentious to quote an official study / paper), found at https://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sun.html



I do not know Eberhard. He's a Doctor so he's probably one of the brainiacs. (My dad actually was a for real rocket scientist, Phd and all, but he never went by "Dr.". He was always just Dad to me, or, coincidentally, Al to most other people - NO NES, Al is NOT my father!)

According to an article on Wikipedia, which is NOT necessarily by a brainiac (or maybe it is - I didn't check to see if the author was a Phd), the world primary energy supply amounted to 155,481 terawatt-hour (TWh) in 2014.

So the units are different and maybe I'll screw it up, but let's take a shot.

We know that the whole world produced 155,481 terawatt-hour (TWh) of energy (all types, coal, oil, nuclear, solar, etc.) in 2014.

We know that the sun outputs 1.8 x 10^17 Joules/s (well, really a WHOLE lot more, that's just the amount of energy the sun hits US with!)



First, let's get that 155PWh reduced. That turns out to be 17.75 TWh in a day. Now, I really wouldn't be surprised if I totally bollixed that one, so please feel free to do the math yourself! I'm only human.

P(W) = E(J) / t(s)
So
watt = joule / second
or
W = J / s

So, 1.8 x 10^17 Joules/s is basically 1.8 x 10^17 Watts

So, 180,000,000 TW or 259,200,000,000 TWh received by the Earth, from the Sun, in the course of one day.

So, according to you and the High Priest Gore, the WHOLE WORLD'S ENERGY PRODUCTION of 17.75 THh is causing more change than the 259,200,000,000 TWh we catch each day just from the sun.

Yeah, I'm TOTALLY worried about replacing my HumVee with a Prius.


Please, ALL The math was ballpark. I'm PROBABLY WRONG. But if I'm wrong by several orders of magnitude, I still am not trading in the dinosaur fueled monster truck.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting energy calculation, congrats.

However you neglect the fact we are converting carbon stored in the ground into CO2 in the atmosphere which acts to trap in heat. The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, no one said anything about energy output of the human race.[rolleyes]
 
namedpipes said:
I'm glad you asked that question, Al. May I call you Al? Adding chemist27 takes so many extra keystrokes.

I don't consider myself a brainiac, but I do know a few. Also, although I disagree with a lot of their policy and politics, I think we can all agree that NASA has a bunch of smart people working for them. People that some of us (me for instance) would call brainiacs. Although I prefer the term "rocket scientists".

So what does NASA have to say on the subject?

From their FAQ on the sun (I thought it would seem pretentious to quote an official study / paper), found at https://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sun.html



I do not know Eberhard. He's a Doctor so he's probably one of the brainiacs. (My dad actually was a for real rocket scientist, Phd and all, but he never went by "Dr.". He was always just Dad to me, or, coincidentally, Al to most other people - NO NES, Al is NOT my father!)

According to an article on Wikipedia, which is NOT necessarily by a brainiac (or maybe it is - I didn't check to see if the author was a Phd), the world primary energy supply amounted to 155,481 terawatt-hour (TWh) in 2014.

So the units are different and maybe I'll screw it up, but let's take a shot.

We know that the whole world produced 155,481 terawatt-hour (TWh) of energy (all types, coal, oil, nuclear, solar, etc.) in 2014.

We know that the sun outputs 1.8 x 10^17 Joules/s (well, really a WHOLE lot more, that's just the amount of energy the sun hits US with!)



First, let's get that 155PWh reduced. That turns out to be 17.75 TWh in a day. Now, I really wouldn't be surprised if I totally bollixed that one, so please feel free to do the math yourself! I'm only human.

P(W) = E(J) / t(s)
So
watt = joule / second
or
W = J / s

So, 1.8 x 10^17 Joules/s is basically 1.8 x 10^17 Watts

So, 180,000,000 TW or 259,200,000,000 TWh received by the Earth, from the Sun, in the course of one daSo, according to you and the High Priest Gore, the WHOLE WORLD'S ENERGY PRODUCTION of 17.75 THh is causing more change than the 259,200,000,000 TWh we catch each day just from the sun.

Yeah, I'm TOTALLY worried about replacing my HumVee with a Prius.


Please, ALL The math was ballpark. I'm PROBABLY WRONG. But if I'm wrong by several orders of magnitude, I still am not trading in the dinosaur fueled monster truck.
Click to expand...

seriously , your using math as a argument ppfftt..[rolleyes].

See these are the things that "they" "our" fault wont even listen to.
Many year ago a family member "save the world" type and all was going on and on about the polar caps melting.
My great uncle being the man of wisdom and such said. " Now tell me something do you believe what the scientist say about the ice age" Yes she says " do you believe that where we stand today about 10k years ago was under ice" Yes she says again..... He then sat there in silence and then finally spewed out his wisdom "do you really think these scientist know when that ****ing ice is supposed to stop ****ing melting" "please tell me what is the stoping point for the ice age." Then she starts with if the ice keeps melting boston will be under water...Then he says "well maybe they should not of built Boston on top of the water. You do know they back filled the harbor a good amount to build all that shit right"

Ok I will sit here and say I think we own it to the planet and ourselves to try like hell not to be complete slobs and continue to make things as efficient as possible but as long as there is money involved its a CF.
 
Alchemist27 said:
That is an interesting energy calculation, congrats.

However you neglect the fact we are converting carbon stored in the ground into CO2 in the atmosphere which acts to trap in heat. The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, no one said anything about energy output of the human race.[rolleyes]
Click to expand...

You could have at LEAST checked my math. I'm really interested to know if I did the conversions more or less right [crying]

Actually, you asked: "Any of you NES brainiacs care to offer up an alternative hypothesis and some measure of scientific data to back up your ideas on how the climate is changing?"

You did NOT scope your question to atmospheric chemistry. You asked about scientifical based thoughts on how/why climate changes. That's what I did. Offered an alternative hypothesis for climate change, backed up with scientific data.

I want my A+.


I'm not overly concerned about the CO2 issue. Plant more trees, maybe?
 
Alchemist27 said:
That is an interesting energy calculation, congrats.

However you neglect the fact we are converting carbon stored in the ground into CO2 in the atmosphere which acts to trap in heat. The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, no one said anything about energy output of the human race.[rolleyes]
Click to expand...


-AL

Did you get the memo and talking points Global Warming was yesterday’s news, we are to call it climate change, You see we got caught changing the temperature data, to support our story of Global Warming and we were caught red handed, so we are changing our story to Climate Change much easy to defend, except for when people go of script and make an old argument like "However you neglect the fact we are converting carbon stored in the ground into CO2 in the atmosphere which acts to trap in heat. The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, no one said anything about energy output of the human race” So please remember to stick with the narrative so we can continue to transfer and redistribute wealth... Because if it was really about the environment we would keep production in this country, with realistic and reasonable regulation instead of sending off shore to place like Chine, India and Mexico where there is not regulation, production is much worse for the environment, and pollution that happens in these third world hell holes affect us in America.

The benefit of the Climate change argument, unlike the coming ice age or Global Warming, facts will not get in are way, of our goal of redistributing wealth and power
 
Alchemist27 said:
Any of you NES brainiacs care to offer up an alternative hypothesis and some measure of scientific data to back up your ideas on how the climate is changing?

The overwhelming consensus of scientists who actually study this find climate change to be real and a threat. Just stomping your feed and saying "nuh-uh, (insert irrelevant anecdote here)" is not an argument. Any half wit can do that.

Being a contrarian isn't a sign of intelligence, it is just a sign of laziness and lack of education.
Click to expand...


I have no doubt the the climate is warming. It's been warming since there were Glaciers over where we stand.....whether we are speeding it, or whatever really doesn't matter, it's going to warm anyway, then it's going to cool again most likely at some point in time.

The only reason it's a threat is because people who built on the coasts and shorelines and under water (new Orleans..pffft) of this planet really didn't plan well for it, and really didn't pay attention, because it's been warming for thousands of years.....guess the brainiacs who built on the coast missed that little point.

But say the earth decides to go into a mini ice age or full ice age if the the sun cycle shuts down?....what then? That would be one hell of a threat....should we start using CFC's like a mother****er and the government provide SUV's to everyone and free gas to counteract the cooling? GMAFB....like that would happen.

Climate change agenda is a political ploy for control, nothing else. Climate change as a natural event, has always been real...and always will be, and will be a threat for anyone who is on the wrong end of the natural cycle. Using it as an argument for policy is retarded.

To think that we can stop earth cycles is a fantasy. If the earth wants to cool dramatically it will wipe us out, if it wants to warm, it will wipe us out. The earth is in constant change....we cannot stop it.

For those who don't believe, I'll be glad to sell some carbon credits to stop the warming...0nly 999.99 each. Great deal!
 
Last edited:
Alchemist27 said:
Any of you NES brainiacs care to offer up an alternative hypothesis and some measure of scientific data to back up your ideas on how the climate is changing?

The overwhelming consensus of scientists who actually study this find climate change to be real and a threat. Just stomping your feed and saying "nuh-uh, (insert irrelevant anecdote here)" is not an argument. Any half wit can do that.

Being a contrarian isn't a sign of intelligence, it is just a sign of laziness and lack of education.
Click to expand...

You continue to impress me more with each post.
You now know the education level of every member of NES.
The most intelligent person here and psychic.
Your way under employed.
 
Chevy 2 65 said:
the earth will burn !! it will look like Mars !!!! OMG !
Click to expand...

Actually, the more we have learned about Mars, the more worried I am that we are looking at our future. (Well, not our's, but some future generation's future.) But if that is the case, there is probably nothing we can do about it. Maybe Bruce Willis will be recruited to team up with a group of aging actor/scientists to harness the carbon and save us all!

Was the loss of Mar's atmosphere due to right wing evil Martian capitalists despoiling their climate? Then again, maybe this is a natural progression. If so, we're screwed.

-Gary
 
Alchemist27 said:
Any of you NES brainiacs care to offer up an alternative hypothesis and some measure of scientific data to back up your ideas on how the climate is changing?

The overwhelming consensus of scientists who actually study this find climate change to be real and a threat. Just stomping your feed and saying "nuh-uh, (insert irrelevant anecdote here)" is not an argument. Any half wit can do that.

Being a contrarian isn't a sign of intelligence, it is just a sign of laziness and lack of education.
Click to expand...

Al, can you just give it a rest please?
 
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/lo...ar_maura_healeys_climate_change_case_vs_exxon

SJC to hear Maura Healey's climate change case vs Exxon

Bob McGovern Friday, July 28, 2017
The state’s highest court will determine whether a Bay State judge was allowed to force ExxonMobil to turn its internal climate change research over to Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey.
Superior Court Judge Heidi Brieger in January ordered ExxonMobil to give Healey’s office documents related to its investigation into whether the energy giant misled the public about the impact of fossil fuels on the climate.
“There is no requirement that the Attorney General (has) probable cause to believe that a violation ... has occurred,” Brieger wrote. “She need only have a belief that a person has engaged in or is engaging in conduct declared to be unlawful.” <- WTF Kind of authoritarian bullshit is that, no probable cause needed to search 4th Amendment violation Hello?!
But the Supreme Judicial Court recently agreed to hear ExxonMobile’s appeal - a legal challenge that questions whether or not Massachusetts courts even have jurisdiction to consider Healey’s suit.
Click to expand...
 
What do you expect when her wife is a judge? The only way you're going to get a judgment against Healey in this state is in a federal court.
 

Similar threads

Car oil change
7 8 9
Replies
268
Views
8K
alx
alx
Winter in Georgia; 20 degree change from morning to noon.
Replies
0
Views
185
allen-1
allen-1
MA Out of state LTC
Replies
19
Views
364
drgrant
drgrant
Colorado Democrats Pushing 11% Excise Firearms Tax, Other California Gun Controls
Replies
6
Views
186
SpaceCritter
SpaceCritter
Supreme Court Hears Texas Gun Store Owner’s Lawsuit Against Bump Stock Ban
2 3
Replies
87
Views
2K
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
Back
Top Bottom