Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are STILL not telling us why your choices are not based on the science Todd. I'm not here to talk about AOC or the GND or anything else you want to throw up here for a detour. You claim that you believe in science, yet your choices say you don't. Please explain.

You are STILL not telling us why your choices are not based on the science Todd.

Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann's science? Mike's Nature Trick science?
Adjusting US temperature data back to the 1930s science?
Stopping skeptics from getting published science?

Why don't I base my choices on that science? LOL!

I'm not here to talk about AOC or the GND or anything else you want to throw up here for a detour.

But she and the rest of the green twats are basing their ideas on the science. Their ideas
are to outlaw coal and nuclear. Even outlaw natural gas. While putting millions of EVs on
an already strained power grid.

Bunch of fucking morons.

I wonder how many Germans are going to freeze to death this winter because
their stupid green party shut down their nuclear reactors because of a tidal wave in Japan.
Have you heard anything so stupid? Why aren't their choices based on the science Crick?

And then they shut down their coal plants to use natural gas. Gas from Putin.

What could go wrong? But at least their green power is only triple the cost of ours.
Poor people don't need heat anyway, eh comrade?

"At least I die green!!!"

 

[Crick]

Are you now saying that you don't believe in science?

 

[jc456]

Why aren’t they installing solar panels around the globe for free?

Crick , so you didn't respond to my question. If it isn't about money, why aren't they installing free solar panels around the globe?

 

[jc456]

Are you now saying that you don't believe in science?

Todd seemed crisp and clear with his answer to you. Why did you ignore it?

 

[Crick]

You are STILL not telling us why your choices are not based on the science Todd.

Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann's science? Mike's Nature Trick science?
Adjusting US temperature data back to the 1930s science?
Stopping skeptics from getting published science?

Why don't I base my choices on that science? LOL!

I'm not here to talk about AOC or the GND or anything else you want to throw up here for a detour.

But she and the rest of the green twats are basing their ideas on the science. Their ideas
are to outlaw coal and nuclear. Even outlaw natural gas. While putting millions of EVs on
an already strained power grid.

Bunch of fucking morons.

I wonder how many Germans are going to freeze to death this winter because
their stupid green party shut down their nuclear reactors because of a tidal wave in Japan.
Have you heard anything so stupid? Why aren't their choices based on the science Crick?

And then they shut down their coal plants to use natural gas. Gas from Putin.

What could go wrong? But at least their green power is only triple the cost of ours.
Poor people don't need heat anyway, eh comrade?

"At least I die green!!!"

I am not going to be lured away from this question. Besides which, none of this crap about AOC, GND or Germany freezing falls under the topic of this dedicated thread. You said you believe in science, yet your choices indicate that you do not. Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am not going to be lured away from this question. Besides which, none of this crap about AOC, GND or Germany freezing falls under the topic of this dedicated thread. You said you believe in science, yet your choices indicate that you do not. Why?

Which choices?

 

[jc456]

I am not going to be lured away from this question. Besides which, none of this crap about AOC, GND or Germany freezing falls under the topic of this dedicated thread. You said you believe in science, yet your choices indicate that you do not. Why?

what choices are you referring to?

 

[Crick]

Except your argument has a glaring hole in it......
You forgot the most important question...."Who PAYS all these so called "scientists" ? (That's right, mostly government grants, a government run by Globalists. Gee....want to get paid and feed your family? Better be sure your "science" agrees with our agenda.)

You have not demonstrated that the government is run by "Globalists" or that the government has an agenda that would push a false narrative. So, my argument has no hole in it. Yours, however has a large cavity.

And the secondary question.....
Who stands to benefit MOST from all these initiatives (it certainly is not the average human being).

It certainly IS the average human being. Global warming and the Earth's climate affect every single human alive and many generations yet to come.

Where are the solar panels produced? (7 of the top 10 manufacturers are in CHINA.) Wind turbines? Same.

All labor intensive manufacturing tends to move to regions with low pay. There are many things that could be done about that, but the trend is not evidence of a conspiracy.

Clearly there can be no argument that Communist countries currently benefit MOST from solar panel proliferation.

Russia is not benefitting from it. Cuba is not benefitting from it. Laos is not benefitting from it. Vietnam has enjoyed a fair bit of technological development, but I could certainly argue that they deserve it.

Do we even need science to understand that......

We need science to understand that the world is getting warmer and that that is primarily due to the increased level of CO2 and other GHGs from human emissions. We need science to understand what it will take to end those emissions and to best survive the now unavoidable results that that warming is producing which, under the best of scenarios, will continue for many decades beyond. That is what is causing this problem, not the liberal/globalist/communist conspiracy your nationalist paranoia creates from whole cloth.

Solar and wind power both become useless in inclement weather. Solar production is cut by more than 50% in winter months in Northern climates. Do you really need someone else to explain that to you? If so then you have no place in this discussion.

Contemporary solar and wind technology can both withstand substantial inclement weather and still produce power. The effect of seasonal weather on solar and wind installation is a thoroughly understood factor long before the first dime gets spent on such installations. It tickles the dog shit out of me when AGW deniers come up with something that a grade schooler could have realized and think that they've come across some formerly unknown show-stopper. Don't be a fool.

 

[Crick]

Which choices?

Sorry, I inadvertently mixed my response to you into my response to Mr Basic and then deleted it.

Your choices to oppose actions aimed at mitigating human GHG emissions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry, I inadvertently mixed my response to you into my response to Mr Basic and then deleted it.

Your choices to oppose actions aimed at mitigating human GHG emissions.

Yeah, I'm against actions greens support that are stupid and expensive.

 

[jc456]

You have not demonstrated that the government is run by "Globalists" or that the government has an agenda that would push a false narrative. So, my argument has no hole in it. Yours, however has a large cavity.

he asked you who paid them. You deflected badly.

 

[jc456]

Sorry, I inadvertently mixed my response to you into my response to Mr Basic and then deleted it.

Your choices to oppose actions aimed at mitigating human GHG emissions.

so why aren't those mitigation steps free?

 

[Crick]

Yeah, I'm against actions greens support that are stupid and expensive.

Would you support actions to reduce or eliminate GHG emissions that were intelligent and economical?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Would you support actions to reduce or eliminate GHG emissions that were intelligent and economical?

Sure.

Feel free to post some.

 

[jc456]

Would you support actions to reduce or eliminate GHG emissions that were intelligent and economical?

wouldn't we freeze to death?

 

[Crick]

Intelligent is easy but your primary concern has always seemed to be the cost. Determining what is a more economical solution will require some agreement on what the cost of doing nothing might be. There are resources - studies - that have examined that precise question and several have been discussed on this board. But, we can set that aside for a moment and go over a few of the more obvious solutions.

1) Shift away from fossil fuel power generation to renewable alternative sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, OTEC, wave energy, etc.
2) Shift from ICE powered vehicles to EVs
3) Shift away from cement for roads and construction
4) Take measures within existing technologies to reduce soot emissions.
5) Take measures to reduce methane leakage

Can you tell us briefly what you think of these five actions?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Intelligent is easy but your primary concern has always seemed to be the cost. Determining what is a more economical solution will require some agreement on what the cost of doing nothing might be. There are resources - studies - that have examined that precise question and several have been discussed on this board. But, we can set that aside for a moment and go over a few of the more obvious solutions.

1) Shift away from fossil fuel power generation to renewable alternative sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, OTEC, wave energy, etc.
2) Shift from ICE powered vehicles to EVs
3) Shift away from cement for roads and construction
4) Take measures within existing technologies to reduce soot emissions.
5) Take measures to reduce methane leakage

Can you tell us briefly what you think of these five actions?

Intelligent is easy

Not from what I've seen from most greens.

but your primary concern has always seemed to be the cost.

Yeah, cost is like really super important.

Determining what is a more economical solution will require some agreement on what the cost of doing nothing might be.

And that's when we run up against really bad green economics.

Can you tell us briefly what you think of these five actions?

1) You're missing nuclear.

2) How are you going to add enough new capacity while you're busy eliminating
coal and natural gas?

3) Using what?

4) China and India should get to work on that.

5) How much would that help?

 

[Crick]

Intelligent is easy

Not from what I've seen from most greens.

but your primary concern has always seemed to be the cost.

Yeah, cost is like really super important.

Determining what is a more economical solution will require some agreement on what the cost of doing nothing might be.

And that's when we run up against really bad green economics.

Can you tell us briefly what you think of these five actions?

1) You're missing nuclear.

You are absolutely right. Let's call that #6

2) How are you going to add enough new capacity while you're busy eliminating
coal and natural gas?

The same way we've been doing it all along.

3) Using what?

Chewing gum. Ground coke bottles. Plaster-of-Paris. This could be where nuclear was supposed to go.

Actually, there are substitutes but they certainly aren't perfect: ferrock, hempcrete, greencrete, timbercrete and rammed earth.

4) China and India should get to work on that.

Everyone should. You know as well as I that the argument "we shouldn't do it till they do" is puerile idiocy.

5) How much would that help?

Not much, but every little bit helps. Like nuclear.

So, we're down to:

1) Nuclear power
2) Wind, solar, geothermal, wave, tide, OTEC and other renewable sources
3) EV vehicles
4) Reduce soot emissions

We were looking for intelligent, economical solutions. Do you think these qualify?

 

[jc456]

We were looking for intelligent, economical solutions. Do you think these qualify?

fk no, still waiting on the what we're fixing.

 

[Crick]

fk no, still waiting on the what we're fixing.

Try holding your breath. That is certain to make it hurry along.