Man made Climate Change

[Crick]

There's no such thing as a free lunch

 

[sparky]

or enough evidence....

 

[Old Rocks]

Trump and his followers are not fans of science and scientists, especially the ones affirming climate change and the fact that much of it is caused by human action. In fact, you could really call the Trump administration's actions in this regard as a war on science.

So, consider the recent success of science and scientists landing a spacecraft on Mars. The voyage took six months. The total distance traveled was 300 million miles. The planet was moving in its orbit at nearly 54,000 miles per hour. It was rotating on it's axis at 540 miles per hour. The target on Mars or landing site in the plane Elysium Planita is an ellipse 81 miles long by 17 miles wide. And, the spacecraft did in fact land in the target area.

It seems to me that science and scientists pulled off an amazing feat, and therefore scientific notions about man assisted climate change should be listened to and given credence. Besides, Trump is a realtor. What does he know about science?

It seems to me that science and scientists pulled off an amazing feat, and therefore scientific notions about man assisted climate change should be listened to and given credence.

I agree. How many nuclear reactors should we build to stop climate change?

Zero. Wind and solar are far less expensive, and do not have the dangers inherent in the nuclear reactors. Old and useless tech in todays world.

 

[sparky]

Trump and his followers are not fans of science and scientists, especially the ones affirming climate change and the fact that much of it is caused by human action. In fact, you could really call the Trump administration's actions in this regard as a war on science.

So, consider the recent success of science and scientists landing a spacecraft on Mars. The voyage took six months. The total distance traveled was 300 million miles. The planet was moving in its orbit at nearly 54,000 miles per hour. It was rotating on it's axis at 540 miles per hour. The target on Mars or landing site in the plane Elysium Planita is an ellipse 81 miles long by 17 miles wide. And, the spacecraft did in fact land in the target area.

It seems to me that science and scientists pulled off an amazing feat, and therefore scientific notions about man assisted climate change should be listened to and given credence. Besides, Trump is a realtor. What does he know about science?

It seems to me that science and scientists pulled off an amazing feat, and therefore scientific notions about man assisted climate change should be listened to and given credence.

I agree. How many nuclear reactors should we build to stop climate change?

Zero. Wind and solar are far less expensive, and do not have the dangers inherent in the nuclear reactors. Old and useless tech in todays world.

fastest growing niche in my profession....~S~

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Trump and his followers are not fans of science and scientists, especially the ones affirming climate change and the fact that much of it is caused by human action. In fact, you could really call the Trump administration's actions in this regard as a war on science.

So, consider the recent success of science and scientists landing a spacecraft on Mars. The voyage took six months. The total distance traveled was 300 million miles. The planet was moving in its orbit at nearly 54,000 miles per hour. It was rotating on it's axis at 540 miles per hour. The target on Mars or landing site in the plane Elysium Planita is an ellipse 81 miles long by 17 miles wide. And, the spacecraft did in fact land in the target area.

It seems to me that science and scientists pulled off an amazing feat, and therefore scientific notions about man assisted climate change should be listened to and given credence. Besides, Trump is a realtor. What does he know about science?

It seems to me that science and scientists pulled off an amazing feat, and therefore scientific notions about man assisted climate change should be listened to and given credence.

I agree. How many nuclear reactors should we build to stop climate change?

Zero. Wind and solar are far less expensive, and do not have the dangers inherent in the nuclear reactors. Old and useless tech in todays world.

Wind and solar are far less expensive,

If that were true, should German electricity costs be trending higher or lower?
Should German rates he higher or lower than US rates?

 

[Crick]

Building new sources, regardless of the technology, is going to cost.

 

[sparky]

Sh*can the GE mark 5, for starters.....~S~

 

[Crick]

Gosh, I am impressed. You were able to produce what appears to be some sort of insider buzz term. Unfortunately, I'm not as impressed as you are.

 

[karpenter]

Wind and solar are far less expensive.

And As Inefficient And Heavily Subsidized
As Any Public Transit
Until There Becomes A Way To Store The DC Output
And The Voltage Drop From Farm To Conversion Plant

The Maximum Rating Of A Farm
Has Never Been The Actual Out-Put
When They Tell You 100,000 Homes And Businesses
Based On The Maximum Power Rated
It's More Like About 6,000 Realistically Generated
It Can't Power The Needs
Of A Modern Industrial Society Of 320 Million

Plus Both Wind And Solar Farms
Indiscriminately Slaughter Wildlife
Especially In Migratory Fly-Ways

Look All This Up For Yourself
And You Will See For Yourself
Just Like I Did

Multiply This Sample By National:
Study: Wind Farms = Bird Killers
A recent study in Klickitat County, Washington shows that active wind farms in Washington and Oregon
kill more than 6,500 birds and 3,000 bats annually.

 

[Crick]

And how much wildlife was killed by the pollution produced by the fossil fuel plants they replaced?

 

[karpenter]

And how much wildlife was killed by the pollution produced by the fossil fuel plants they replaced?

Show Us

And They Haven't Replaced A Single Plant
They NEED These Plants
To Convert The DC To Useable AC
And These Farms' Out-Put Are All Less Than 8% Efficient
It Has To Be Converted While/When It's Being Produced
So They Raise The Cost At The Power Plants

At Least DDT Prevented Deadly Diseases

 

[mamooth]

Man-made global warming isn't "science" True scientists don't manipulate data to make the results conform to an ideology.

There's a reason you deniers can only peddle such weepy conspiracy babble. All the hard data says that the claims of your political/religious cult are wrong. However, your cult commands that you're absolutely forbidden to admit that even the smallest part of your cult's sacred dogma is wrong. You're required to parrot cult dogma verbatim, else you'd be banished from the cult, which would be like a death sentence to cult sheeple. Since all the hard data says your cult is lying, the only option you see open to you is denying the hard data.

This is yet another reason why it's so good to be on the rational side. No matter what the topic is, we simply point to reality and "win". And then there's your cult, which has to retreat into a series of bizzarro alternate universes to explain why the reality that we live in always contradicts their claims.

We on the rational side have gotten everything right for over 40 years now. That's why we have so much credibility; we've earned it. Your pack of clowns and frauds has failed at everything for 40 years running now. If you want credibility, you have to earn it the hard way too, like we have. You won't even try. Instead of trying to do actual science, you can only whimper about how the facts have to be a liberal conspiracy, being that they contradict your cult's holy scripture.

 

[JGalt]

Man-made global warming isn't "science" True scientists don't manipulate data to make the results conform to an ideology.

There's a reason you deniers can only peddle such weepy conspiracy babble. All the hard data says that the claims of your political/religious cult are wrong. However, your cult commands that you're absolutely forbidden to admit that even the smallest part of your cult's sacred dogma is wrong. You're required to parrot cult dogma verbatim, else you'd be banished from the cult, which would be like a death sentence to cult sheeple. Since all the hard data says your cult is lying, the only option you see open to you is denying the hard data.

This is yet another reason why it's so good to be on the rational side. No matter what the topic is, we simply point to reality and "win". And then there's your cult, which has to retreat into a series of bizzarro alternate universes to explain why the reality that we live in always contradicts their claims.

We on the rational side have gotten everything right for over 40 years now. That's why we have so much credibility; we've earned it. Your pack of clowns and frauds has failed at everything for 40 years running now. If you want credibility, you have to earn it the hard way too, like we have. You won't even try. Instead of trying to do actual science, you can only whimper about how the facts have to be a liberal conspiracy, being that they contradict your cult's holy scripture.

"We on the rational side..."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Man-made global warming isn't "science" True scientists don't manipulate data to make the results conform to an ideology.

There's a reason you deniers can only peddle such weepy conspiracy babble. All the hard data says that the claims of your political/religious cult are wrong. However, your cult commands that you're absolutely forbidden to admit that even the smallest part of your cult's sacred dogma is wrong. You're required to parrot cult dogma verbatim, else you'd be banished from the cult, which would be like a death sentence to cult sheeple. Since all the hard data says your cult is lying, the only option you see open to you is denying the hard data.

This is yet another reason why it's so good to be on the rational side. No matter what the topic is, we simply point to reality and "win". And then there's your cult, which has to retreat into a series of bizzarro alternate universes to explain why the reality that we live in always contradicts their claims.

We on the rational side have gotten everything right for over 40 years now. That's why we have so much credibility; we've earned it. Your pack of clowns and frauds has failed at everything for 40 years running now. If you want credibility, you have to earn it the hard way too, like we have. You won't even try. Instead of trying to do actual science, you can only whimper about how the facts have to be a liberal conspiracy, being that they contradict your cult's holy scripture.

We on the rational side have gotten everything right for over 40 years now. That's why we have so much credibility; we've earned it.

And that's why the French are rioting over Macron's planet saving gasoline tax.
They're upset that the tax isn't higher.

 

[mamooth]

We on the rational side..."

Thank you for supporting my point, which is how your political/religous cult sucks in the least intelligent and most cowardly. Instead of discussing the actual issues, you ran, posting meaningless pictures of individuals to cover your retreat.

That's why your masters consider you to be one of the more useful members of their cadre of Useful Idiots. You never trouble them with an independent thought, and you can always be counted on to obediently parrot whatever today's talking point is. Denialism isn't the actual cult. Right-wing-kook-extremism is the cult. Denialism is just one of the many reality-defying mantras that the cultists are ordered to chant. If your masters instructed their cult acolytes to accept global warming theory, you'd all immediately obey, and then you'd swear that you'd always been at war with EastAsia.

 

[mamooth]

And that's why the French are rioting over Macron's planet saving gasoline tax.

What does that have to we with us getting all the science right for the past 40 years?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And that's why the French are rioting over Macron's planet saving gasoline tax.

What does that have to we with us getting all the science right for the past 40 years?

Your fear-mongering use of science hasn't trumped the economics of the people.

 

[Crick]

That's not fear mongering. That's reality.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's not fear mongering. That's reality.

The reality that the 30 cent tax hike will have no impact on our impending CO2 apocalypse?

 

[JGalt]

And that's why the French are rioting over Macron's planet saving gasoline tax.

What does that have to we with us getting all the science right for the past 40 years?

Your fear-mongering use of science hasn't trumped the economics of the people.

That's true. The junk-science hoax of "man-made global warming" was only cooked up to be used as a political and economic tool for the propagation of globalism and socialism. Much of it was directed toward the US, although we're not the world's biggest polluter. The global-warmies always seem to take issue with this country, but are always silent about China, which is the world's biggest polluter.

The World's Biggest Polluters - The New Ecologist