Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Toddsterpatriot]

[sigh] ... I had such a witty and clever remark ... but Papa Flacaltenn is right ... this thread is for greenhouse denialism ...

Spoiler

Gravity is always there pulling the airplane down ... it's the lack of lift that causes them to crash ...

And backradiation denialism.

 

[ReinyDays]

And backradiation denialism.

And gravity denialism ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And gravity denialism ...

Clairvoyant photons.

 

[ReinyDays]

Clairvoyant photons.

Stop ... I'm gonna pee my pants ...

 

[Leo123]

Would you like to compare the fuel cost for a 100 MW solar farm to the fuel cost for a 100 MW natural gas power plant over a 20 year lifetime?

According to Gas Consumption per 1 MW - BBN World the gas to produce 1 MWHr would cost $49. So, our plant would cost $4,900/hour. There are 8,760 hours in a year, so that's $429,240/year. Over 20 years that would be $8,584,800. Fuel costs for the solar farm would be zero. How's that look to you? Does it look like something you could ignore because it seems to irk you that we should use anything other than petroleum?

The cost of gas is 0 too, if you ignore the infrastructure to produce it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Stop ... I'm gonna pee my pants ...

It was turtles all the way down.

 

[ReinyDays]

It was turtles all the way down.

Goddamit ... I just reupholstered this chair ...

 

[Crick]

The cost of gas is 0 too, if you ignore the infrastructure to produce it.

Can I watch while you tell that to your local gas station? And are you suggesting that infrastructure is required to produce sunlight, wind, tides, waves and the internal heat of the planet?

 

[Billo_Really]

The purpose of this thread was to call-out folks who were clinging to UNscientific and screwy arguments that violate basic physics and thermodynamics.

But there CERTAINLY IS a very good scientific case for claiming the current and future effects of the OBSERVED and recorded Global Warming are GROSSLY exaggerated by the media, politicians and certain "activists in labcoats" in the scientific community.

How much has the Earth warmed in your lifetime? Probably a little over 0.6DegC. Has the RATE of warming drastically increased as predicted 35 years ago? No. Will the temperature anomaly in 2100 be the 6 to 10DegC that was INITIALLY claimed? Not likely at all.

There IS a warming trend. Man plays role in that. But after 35 years of this circus -- the pants peeing predictions have ALL been refined downwards over the years.

This is WHY CC or GW gets little traction in public polls anymore and why you NO LONGER see DAILY or MONTHLY news articles on how we're all gonna die. THOSE were here DAILY on USMB in this forum up to about 2010. The Earth is not cooling, but the SCIENCE and heat of the arguments have been cooling for about 10 years now.

My metaphor was right on the money! The mountain of evidence and over 96% of the scientific community, says you're wrong! This topic is NOT a debatable issue.

 

[Leo123]

Can I watch while you tell that to your local gas station? And are you suggesting that infrastructure is required to produce sunlight, wind, tides, waves and the internal heat of the planet?

It costs $$$ for infrastructure. The fuel is just sitting there in the ground, in the wind, in the water, in the sunlight. Funny you think energy is free.

 

[ReinyDays]

My metaphor was right on the money! The mountain of evidence and over 96% of the scientific community, says you're wrong! This topic is NOT a debatable issue.

That leaves the 4% of scientists who actually specialize in fluid mechanics ... why do you think a single degree is a "mountain"? ... is this even perceptable by an individual human being ... or do we need expensive equipment to see any changes at all? ...

Why do you think 1.8 W/m^2 is enough power for any of these catastrophic predictions? ...

 

[Billo_Really]

That leaves the 4% of scientists who actually specialize in fluid mechanics ... why do you think a single degree is a "mountain"? ... is this even perceptable by an individual human being ... or do we need expensive equipment to see any changes at all? ...

Why do you think 1.8 W/m^2 is enough power for any of these catastrophic predictions? ...

Shut up! Fuck off! Go to hell! This is not a debatable issue.

 

[flacaltenn]

My metaphor was right on the money! The mountain of evidence and over 96% of the scientific community, says you're wrong! This topic is NOT a debatable issue.

OF COURSE it's debatable. Science doesn't have a vote. And by MY COUNT -- the number of GW papers being published revising OLD projections DOWN -- far outnumber those saying "we're killing the planet" by 2100.

Your phony ass consensus is on ONE STUPID QUESTION. You dont get a consensus on a topic this large and complex by asking ONE QUESTION. ME -- MYSELF probably AGREES with your "single stupid consensus question -- but that's FAR from what's necessary to PREDICT future temperature, weather conditions 50 or 100 years out.

And "your consensus" didn't ASK A SCIENTIST a single question. They read abstracts of studies for key words and then ADDED ALL THE STUDIES THAT DIDN'T CONTAIN ANY to their "positive consensus number". It's fraud basically. The dudes pushing this "consensus" shit are former CARTOONISTS and political science majors.

I'll never steer ya wrong. There's no such thing as "settled science". Not even simple shit like "should I place my baby on their back/side/stomach to sleep"???

 

[ReinyDays]

Just to be clear ... the consensus view in the Royal Society of England in 1859 was that God created Man ... and discussion to the contrary was heresy and an imprisonable crime ... Queen Victoria was also Head-of-Church (de jure) ... her opinion was the consensus ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just to be clear ... the consensus view in the Royal Society of England in 1859 was that God created Man ... and discussion to the contrary was heresy and an imprisonable crime ... Queen Victoria was also Head-of-Church (de jure) ... her opinion was the consensus ...

Works for me.

 

[ReinyDays]

Works for me.

Consensus is a philosophical conclusion ... and is very useful ... but science requires demonstration ... and as Papa Flacaltenn points out, the experimental data that's been coming in has all pointed to more conservative resolutions of these models ...

 

[Billo_Really]

OF COURSE it's debatable. Science doesn't have a vote. And by MY COUNT -- the number of GW papers being published revising OLD projections DOWN -- far outnumber those saying "we're killing the planet" by 2100.

Your phony ass consensus is on ONE STUPID QUESTION. You dont get a consensus on a topic this large and complex by asking ONE QUESTION. ME -- MYSELF probably AGREES with your "single stupid consensus question -- but that's FAR from what's necessary to PREDICT future temperature, weather conditions 50 or 100 years out.

And "your consensus" didn't ASK A SCIENTIST a single question. They read abstracts of studies for key words and then ADDED ALL THE STUDIES THAT DIDN'T CONTAIN ANY to their "positive consensus number". It's fraud basically. The dudes pushing this "consensus" shit are former CARTOONISTS and political science majors.

I'll never steer ya wrong. There's no such thing as "settled science". Not even simple shit like "should I place my baby on their back/side/stomach to sleep"???

This is a stupid thread and you have a stupid argument. The only scientists you have on your side are FOSSIL FUEL WHORES!

 

[ReinyDays]

You brought the wrong kind of flowers.

Hey STUPID ... "flowers" is the Biblical term for menstruation ... illiterate much? ...

 

[flacaltenn]

This is a stupid thread and you have a stupid argument. The only scientists you have on your side are FOSSIL FUEL WHORES!

Try me. But I DOUBT you even KNOW what the "one stupid question" your beloved consensus asked. GW is a COUPLE HUNDRED questions to verify. Most inter-disciplinary science on planet. Everyone from squid experts to tree ring readers are "GW scientists.

 

[Billo_Really]

Try me. But I DOUBT you even KNOW what the "one stupid question" your beloved consensus asked. GW is a COUPLE HUNDRED questions to verify. Most inter-disciplinary science on planet. Everyone from squid experts to tree ring readers are "GW scientists.

If you were right, you wouldn't be making up excuses to silence the opposition.