AGW Fraud: There's no such thing as "Settled Science"

[CrusaderFrank]

If there's any political link to views on global warming, it's the hive mind "you didn't built that" crowd will believe whatever they are told and can parrot back the new talking point perfectly.

First it was global cooling then it was global warming and when there was no warming they pivoted to climate change and in every case their cult had no problem reading from the new hymnal no matter how silly or unscientific the message

 

[Abraham3]

I'm quite certain, Dave, that you will find people concerned about AGW support hydroelectric, geothermal and nuclear. Some may oppose power plants in some locations - after all, hydroelectric has a massive impact on its local environment - but they will not oppose the use of non-emitting power technologies given what we currently face. Some still oppose nuclear, particularly with what happened at Fukushima. I can hardly blame them. But I still support nuclear power plants. I always have. Whether or not we call them "alternative" is irrelevant.

My question about guns was off-topic, but from your Avatar and your sig, it would appear they form a significant part of your self-identity. I simply wondered why.

 

[Abraham3]

We know for a fact that anyone who believes that the opinions of politicians constitute some kind of informed scientific expertise is an idiot who doesn't understand the first thing about science.

I don't believe politicians figured in to those comments in any way, shape or form. The comment was that the folks who reject AGW, like the folks who reject evolution, tend to be conservative (ie, political conservatives, republicans). Capiche?

 

[Abraham3]

Wind a solar are competing against coal, not oil. The USA has enough coal to last for at least 250 years. There is simply no economic reason other than the Chicken Little hysterics of the global warming cult to switch to wind or solar.

Storage mechanisms will only make them less cost competitive.

Yeah, right, they will have to pay 5 times as much for alternatives as they now pay. It would be easier to sell ice to Eskimos that to sell consumers on that proposition.

Well. How could we argue with that? There is no global warming problem. CO2 and soot have no effect on the climate. The world's climate scientists are hysterical fear-mongers. And the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS THE MONEY.

Please tell me how you arrive at your choice of electricity supplier. Is it purely by cost or do you take the intangibles into account? Do you think about their advertising when you go down to the electricity market? Do you take into account whether or not they insure their same-sex married employees? Do you care who they've contributed to in the last election? Just HOW DO YOU PICK YOUR ELECTRICITY PROVIDER DAVE?

 

[orogenicman]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Now we know you're smoking crack!



"Inertia" must be a euphemism meaning "the laws of physics."

More evidence that you're smoking crack. For this to be even remotely true you would have to ignore the fact that all wind power requires 100% backup from a fossil fuel fired power plant. How can wind power be cheaper than coal when you have to include the price of coal fired power plants?

You're delusional about the maintenance and operations costs. The depreciation of the plant exceeds the operation costs of coal fired plants.

Hydro electric and nuclear have always been economical competitive. However, there's little potential for expanding hydroelectric and eco-nutburgers like you have waged war on nuclear making it virtually impossible to get any new plants built. Geothermal and OTEC are insignificant.



Hydroelectric and nuclear are not "alternative energy sources." The statement applied to wind and solar is highly accurate.



Wind and solar will never replace oil as an energy source for transportation.

When a barrel of oil is going for $1,000, lots of alternatives become feasible. Long before that, wind and solar will be mainstream power sources.

Wind a solar are competing against coal, not oil. The USA has enough coal to last for at least 250 years. There is simply no economic reason other than the Chicken Little hysterics of the global warming cult to switch to wind or solar.

Absolutely, we DO have reasons to switch away from coal even if you discount global warming. Coal is a very dirty fuel. It pollutes. Much of the coal we have in reserve is high sulfur coal (which contributes to acid rain and acidic water run off), and much of it is also high in toxic metals such as arsenic, cadmium, zinc, and lead. Coal residue has a high concentration of carcinogenic organic compounds, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Mining coal is hugely destructive of the environment, and pollutes our national waterways and our groundwater. The product of burning coal, fly ash, is hazardous and there is a shit load of it already for which they have no disposal solution. This does not constitute chicken little hysterics. These are the facts. And these are not just environmental reasons to stop using coal. They are also economic reasons, because in any economic scheme, you must look at the negative economic consequences, not just the positive. And such environmental impacts must be addressed as economic issues as much as health, safety, and environmental issues.

 

[daveman]

The opinion of environmentalists is not what makes them alternative. None of the three produce greenhouse gases. That is what makes them 'alternative'.

You don't get to redefine words. Hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear are mainstream sources. Period.

So what? Do you have a point?

Yes. Not letting progressives get away with redefining words.

 

[daveman]

Conventional power generation has NEVER been subsidized? Ever? Are you sure?

Why should I be sure of something I never claimed?

Hint: Read what I actually write, not what you WANT me to have written. You look less foolish that way.

You seem to be complaining that alternative energy sources are being subsidized, but say nothing of the fact that conventional power sources have been subsidized for decades. Don't you think that is being a bit hypocritical, if not foolish?

Not at all. We're constantly being told that wind and solar are the only things that will save us (well, except for world socialism)...but they can't survive without massive infusions of taxpayer money. If the money stops, wind and solar power go away.

If conventional power subsidies stop, conventional power will still be here. More expensive, but it will remain.

 

[orogenicman]

Why should I be sure of something I never claimed?

Hint: Read what I actually write, not what you WANT me to have written. You look less foolish that way.

You seem to be complaining that alternative energy sources are being subsidized, but say nothing of the fact that conventional power sources have been subsidized for decades. Don't you think that is being a bit hypocritical, if not foolish?

Not at all. We're constantly being told that wind and solar are the only things that will save us (well, except for world socialism)...but they can't survive without massive infusions of taxpayer money. If the money stops, wind and solar power go away.

If conventional power subsidies stop, conventional power will still be here. More expensive, but it will remain.

Do you think that conventional power sources, in their infancy, could have survived without government subsidies? Can they survive today without them? They still get subsidies, as does the petroleum industry. Other than your obvious political agenda here, I fail to see a point to your argument.

 

[orogenicman]

You don't get to redefine words. Hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear are mainstream sources. Period.

So what? Do you have a point?

Yes. Not letting progressives get away with redefining words.

A worthy goal, if that were what was taking place here.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Evolution is a lie.

Climate change a conspiracy.

Science is a faith.

How conservatives view science.

^ Typical dishonesty from rderp.

Evolution appears to be a viable theory. So, don't tell us what we think, you lying shit stain.

Climate change is real. But call it "man made" and you DESERVE the debate you get, you dishonest lolberal hack.

Science is not faith. But AGW cultists don't use science. They USE faith.

Dishonest lolberal hacks like you cannot understand -- or will not.

 

[boedicca]

It's going to get colder.

Just recently, experts said that the Arctic ice cover was becoming thinner while journalists warned that the oncoming global warming would make it possible to grow oranges in the north of Siberia. Now, they say a cold spell will set in. Apparently, this will not occur overnight, Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory, says.

"Journalists say the entire process is very simple: once solar activity declines, the temperature drops. But besides solar activity, the climate is influenced by other factors, including the lithosphere, the atmosphere, the ocean, the glaciers. The share of solar activity in climate change is only 20%. This means that sun’s activity could trigger certain changes whereas the actual climate changing process takes place on the Earth".

Solar activity follows different cycles, including an 11-year cycle, a 90-year cycle and a 200-year cycle. Yuri Nagovitsyn comments.

"Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity could start in 2030-2040 but it won’t be as pervasive as in the late 17th century"...

Read more: Cooling in the Arctic: what to expect? - News - World - The Voice of Russia: News, Breaking news, Politics, Economics, Business, Russia, International current events, Expert opinion, podcasts, Video

 

[bripat9643]

Do you think that conventional power sources, in their infancy, could have survived without government subsidies? Can they survive today without them? They still get subsidies, as does the petroleum industry. Other than your obvious political agenda here, I fail to see a point to your argument.

Obviously they could because they received no subsidies in their infancy.

The subsidies received by the petroleum industry are miniscule, if they can even honestly be said to exist. Furthermore, the petroleum industry pays hundreds of billions in taxes every year. Wind and Solar produce no revenue for the government.

 

[daveman]

I'm quite certain, Dave, that you will find people concerned about AGW support hydroelectric, geothermal and nuclear. Some may oppose power plants in some locations - after all, hydroelectric has a massive impact on its local environment - but they will not oppose the use of non-emitting power technologies given what we currently face. Some still oppose nuclear, particularly with what happened at Fukushima. I can hardly blame them. But I still support nuclear power plants. I always have. Whether or not we call them "alternative" is irrelevant.

Calling them alternative seems to mean a lot to you.

New hydroelectric facilities are almost out of the question, although there is a 72MW plant being built not 20 miles from where I sit. It's being built on the site of an existing flood-control dam, so the only environment impact is limited to the construction site.

Geothermal is limited, as well. There simply aren't very many places you can get to enough subsurface heat. And geothermal poses not insignificant risks of its own.

As for nuclear, SMRs are the way to go. First "Small Modular" Nuclear Reactors Planned for Tennessee

My question about guns was off-topic, but from your Avatar and your sig, it would appear they form a significant part of your self-identity. I simply wondered why.

If you'd read all my signline, your question would have been answered. My avvie and sig are references to a series of Stephen King novels that I enjoy.

 

[orogenicman]

Do you think that conventional power sources, in their infancy, could have survived without government subsidies? Can they survive today without them? They still get subsidies, as does the petroleum industry. Other than your obvious political agenda here, I fail to see a point to your argument.

Obviously they could because they received no subsidies in their infancy.

Think again:

Long History Of U.S. Energy Subsidies | December 19, 2011 Issue - Vol. 89 Issue 51 | Chemical & Engineering News

The subsidies received by the petroleum industry are miniscule, if they can even honestly be said to exist. Furthermore, the petroleum industry pays hundreds of billions in taxes every year. Wind and Solar produce no revenue for the government.

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[orogenicman]

I'm quite certain, Dave, that you will find people concerned about AGW support hydroelectric, geothermal and nuclear. Some may oppose power plants in some locations - after all, hydroelectric has a massive impact on its local environment - but they will not oppose the use of non-emitting power technologies given what we currently face. Some still oppose nuclear, particularly with what happened at Fukushima. I can hardly blame them. But I still support nuclear power plants. I always have. Whether or not we call them "alternative" is irrelevant.

Calling them alternative seems to mean a lot to you.

New hydroelectric facilities are almost out of the question, although there is a 72MW plant being built not 20 miles from where I sit. It's being built on the site of an existing flood-control dam, so the only environment impact is limited to the construction site.

Geothermal is limited, as well. There simply aren't very many places you can get to enough subsurface heat. And geothermal poses not insignificant risks of its own.

As for nuclear, SMRs are the way to go. First "Small Modular" Nuclear Reactors Planned for Tennessee

My question about guns was off-topic, but from your Avatar and your sig, it would appear they form a significant part of your self-identity. I simply wondered why.

If you'd read all my signline, your question would have been answered. My avvie and sig are references to a series of Stephen King novels that I enjoy.

So what you are telling us is that at heart, you are a killer. Oh my.

 

[daveman]

Just HOW DO YOU PICK YOUR ELECTRICITY PROVIDER DAVE?

Psssst! That's bripat9643, not me.

 

[boedicca]

I'm quite certain, Dave, that you will find people concerned about AGW support hydroelectric, geothermal and nuclear. Some may oppose power plants in some locations - after all, hydroelectric has a massive impact on its local environment - but they will not oppose the use of non-emitting power technologies given what we currently face. Some still oppose nuclear, particularly with what happened at Fukushima. I can hardly blame them. But I still support nuclear power plants. I always have. Whether or not we call them "alternative" is irrelevant.

Calling them alternative seems to mean a lot to you.

New hydroelectric facilities are almost out of the question, although there is a 72MW plant being built not 20 miles from where I sit. It's being built on the site of an existing flood-control dam, so the only environment impact is limited to the construction site.

Geothermal is limited, as well. There simply aren't very many places you can get to enough subsurface heat. And geothermal poses not insignificant risks of its own.

As for nuclear, SMRs are the way to go. First "Small Modular" Nuclear Reactors Planned for Tennessee

My question about guns was off-topic, but from your Avatar and your sig, it would appear they form a significant part of your self-identity. I simply wondered why.

If you'd read all my signline, your question would have been answered. My avvie and sig are references to a series of Stephen King novels that I enjoy.

So what you are telling us is that at heart, you are a killer. Oh my.

You.Are.A.Moron.

 

[orogenicman]

If you'd read all my signline, your question would have been answered.

sigline:

I kill with my heart.

You do the math.

 

[Saigon]

It's going to get colder.

Just recently, experts said that the Arctic ice cover was becoming thinner while journalists warned that the oncoming global warming would make it possible to grow oranges in the north of Siberia. Now, they say a cold spell will set in. Apparently, this will not occur overnight, Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory, says.


Read more: Cooling in the Arctic: what to expect? - News - World - The Voice of Russia: News, Breaking news, Politics, Economics, Business, Russia, International current events, Expert opinion, podcasts, Video

Actually, you've just explained the current lull in temperatures - at least that's what a few articles I've read suggest.

Unfortunately, they also said warming would go up another notch as the solar cycle progresses.

 

[daveman]

I'm quite certain, Dave, that you will find people concerned about AGW support hydroelectric, geothermal and nuclear. Some may oppose power plants in some locations - after all, hydroelectric has a massive impact on its local environment - but they will not oppose the use of non-emitting power technologies given what we currently face. Some still oppose nuclear, particularly with what happened at Fukushima. I can hardly blame them. But I still support nuclear power plants. I always have. Whether or not we call them "alternative" is irrelevant.

Calling them alternative seems to mean a lot to you.

New hydroelectric facilities are almost out of the question, although there is a 72MW plant being built not 20 miles from where I sit. It's being built on the site of an existing flood-control dam, so the only environment impact is limited to the construction site.

Geothermal is limited, as well. There simply aren't very many places you can get to enough subsurface heat. And geothermal poses not insignificant risks of its own.

As for nuclear, SMRs are the way to go. First "Small Modular" Nuclear Reactors Planned for Tennessee

My question about guns was off-topic, but from your Avatar and your sig, it would appear they form a significant part of your self-identity. I simply wondered why.

If you'd read all my signline, your question would have been answered. My avvie and sig are references to a series of Stephen King novels that I enjoy.

So what you are telling us is that at heart, you are a killer. Oh my.

You absolutely SUCK at...well, everything.

What I am telling you is I like a series of novels. Do you read for pleasure? Because it's plain you damn sure can't read message boards.