Further proof global warming is a hoax!

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is this a real picture of Charlie Kirk? How did his face get so small or the rest of his head so big? You could put a whole 'nother face on his forehead and one on each cheek. I think it's been tweaked. I just looked at a bunch of other photos of the fellow and he looks like this:

Now, don't get me wrong. I think he's a neo-nazi fascist idiot, but... you know.

I think he's a neo-Nazi fascist idiot,

Sounds serious!
What are his neo-Nazi fascist ideas?

 

[healthmyths]

How many new nuclear reactors should we build?

Almost all the comments regarding EVs doesn't include Trucks.

In 2021, nearly 166.1 million private and commercial trucks were registered in the United States.
California and Texas were the states with the most trucks licensed, at 15.9 and 14.6 million trucks respectively.

Registered U.S. private and commercial trucks by state | Statista

In 2021, nearly 166.1 million private and commercial trucks were registered in the United States.

www.statista.com

If 80% of the 166 million private trucks or 132 million are EVs and each truck averages 100,000 miles per truck/ year.
source:How Many Miles Do Truckers Drive a Year?

Each truck average 1.89 kWh per Mile Per Truck : Fact: Battery capacity and recharging needs for electric buses in city transit service (Journal Article) | OSTI.GOV
Lets do the math: 132 million trucks(80%) at 100,000 miles/year/truck equals 13,200,000,000,000 miles in 1 year.
13,200,000,000,000 miles at 1.89 kWh per mile is 24,948,000,000,000 kWh and that's just for EV Trucks!

OK...so say my figures based on FACTS are 50% off... or 12,474,000,000,000 kWh.
The current 11,070 power plants generate 4,165,030,000,000 kWh Total kWh electricity generated In USA in 2021
80% of EV Trucks will need 3 times MORE electricity than the current total electricity generated by the current 11,070 power plants
...if my figures are off by 50% source: Electricity generation, capacity, and sales in the United States - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

The above 11,070 power plants generate 4,165,030,000,000 kWh or
per power plant: 376,244,806 kWh each per year.
FACT: Electricity generation, capacity, and sales in the United States - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

One new nuclear power plant will cost in construction at $2,000/kW, not including financing costs, $752,489,612 per NEW plant.

https://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/SynapsePaper.2008-07.0.Nuclear-Plant-Construction-Costs.A0022_0.pdf

FACT: One power plant at $752,489,612 will generate 376,244,806 kWh per year.
So how many more nuclear power plants will have to be built (if EVEN at a 50% error factor),
JUST to meet for trucks total usage of 12,474,000,000,000 kWh/ year?

Divide 12,474,000,000,000 kWh by 376,244,806 kWh generated per power plant,
or an additional 33,153 nuclear power plants have to be built!
33,153 NEW nuclear power plants at the cost of $752,489,612 EACH plant or total of $24,948,000,000,000!

Oh and by the way, it takes around 6 to 8 years to build a nuclear reactor.

https://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/te_1555_web.pdf

 

[OKTexas]

The logic applied in both these comments are the same logic that can be found in any grade school playground: a false dichotomy and "you first". Grow your thinking dude. Look at the science first, then think about what needs to be done.

You stupid fuck, more dams and nuclear power plants were needed long before Al the whore started lying about global warming. How old are you, 3?

.

 

[OKTexas]

View attachment 789170
View attachment 789168​

You don't appear to have any credible citations to support your hyper-partisan opinion.

Inevitably, Republicans are finally, begrudgingly, adopting at least a half-assed acknowledgement of reality:

... (Gov. Rick) Scott had been famous for forbidding the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to use the words "climate change" and "global warming" in any official communication, but DeSantis took a different approach. Wasting no time, he signed an executive order during his first week in office addressing a series of environmental issues and appointing a chief science officer to "prioritize scientific data, research, monitoring, and analysis. He also announced the creation of the Office of Resilience and Coastal Protection to help communities deal with rising sea levels.​

​

The change in tone from the Scott administration to the DeSantis governorship would appear that Florida, a state highly susceptible to the impacts of global warming, might have a conservative leader ready to move past climate denial and ready to take legitimate action.​

​

While the Scott administration refused to even mention the words "climate change," DeSantis has also had public moments distancing himself from the issue, dodging a question from a reporter in December 2021 when asked what his administration is doing to fight climate change, the governor replied, "We're not doing any left-wing stuff."​

​

But DeSantis is doing some "stuff," such as signing a bill in 2022 that dedicates $640 million toward preparing communities for sea level rise, flooding and more intense storms.​

​

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, it is "extremely likely" that over 95% of human activity is the "dominant cause" of global warming, leading to climate change, resulting in more severe weather events.​

​

Signing the bill was "a bold first step for Florida in terms of sea level rise and flooding, for sure, but at the same time what it's missing is anything to actually reduce the cause of the problem -- which is greenhouse gas emissions," Jonathan Webber, deputy director of Florida Conservation Voters, told the Associated Press in 2021.​

​

... Cohen said that by investing in adaptation strategies, DeSantis is acknowledging that climate change is a reality, but to mitigate it would mean an investment in reducing Florida's emissions and positioning the state to enter the competitive race for clean energy alternatives.​

​

[DeSantis addresses climate change impacts but not the source, some say: ANALYSIS]​

​

​

DeDo Run Ron's "lie back and think of England" attitude toward Florida's ravaging by anthropogenic clime change is transparently feeble.

Here's how climate change intensifies hurricanes

Look up your own damn links, and no one is denying that the climate is changing, it's been doing it from day one. It's the cause that's being debated. BTW they've forecast an average hurricane season this year. Not more, not more intense, just average. So shove your fear porn, it's fallen flat in reality ever since you commies began spewing that garbage.

.

 

[abu afak]

Look up your own damn links, and no one is denying that the climate is changing, it's been doing it from day one. It's the cause that's being debated. BTW they've forecast an average hurricane season this year. Not more, not more intense, just average. So shove your fear porn, it's fallen flat in reality ever since you commies began spewing that garbage.

.

I'm glad you UNWITTINGLY acknowledge/rely on "they." They being the same people who post the facts on AGW/Climate change.
Of course, 'they' forecast 'average' because We have warmer water on the severe side, but more eccentrically El Nino this season/year whose winds retard hurricanes.

F**k you with Both Longhorns you stupid cowgirl.
`
`

 

[OKTexas]

I'm glad you UNWITTINGLY acknowledge/rely on "they." They being the same people who post the facts on AGW/Climate change.
Of course, 'they' forecast 'average' because We have warmer water on the severe side, but more eccentrically El Nino this season/year whose winds retard hurricanes.

F**k you with Both Longhorns you stupid cowgirl.
`
`

Practice what you preach commie, your ignorance is showing. LMAO

NOAA predicts a near-normal 2023 Atlantic hurricane season

El Nino, above-average Atlantic Ocean temperatures set the stage

www.noaa.gov

.

 

[abu afak]

Practice what you preach commie, your ignorance is showing. LMAO

NOAA predicts a near-normal 2023 Atlantic hurricane season

El Nino, above-average Atlantic Ocean temperatures set the stage

www.noaa.gov

.

That's what I said,
YOU are using NOAA, foremost Advocate of both Warming and it's Data gatherer!
Again:

​

"I'm glad you UNWITTINGLY acknowledge/rely on "they." They being the same people who post the facts on AGW/Climate change.​

Of course, 'they' forecast 'average' because We have warmer water on the severe side, but more eccentrically El Nino this season/year whose winds retard hurricanes.​

​

F**k you with Both Longhorns you stupid cowgirl.​

`​

 

[OKTexas]

That's what I said,
YOU are using NOAA, foremost Advocate of both Warming and it's Data gatherer!
Again:

​

"I'm glad you UNWITTINGLY acknowledge/rely on "they." They being the same people who post the facts on AGW/Climate change.​

Of course, 'they' forecast 'average' because We have warmer water on the severe side, but more eccentrically El Nino this season/year whose winds retard hurricanes.​

​

F**k you with Both Longhorns you stupid cowgirl.​

`​

Those folks are lucky to get a 10 day forecast reasonably accurate, yet you have total "faith" they can get a 10 year forecast reasonably accurate. How long have you been a member of the AWG church?

.

 

[schmidlap]

How many new nuclear reactors should we build?

I am not empowered to decree such things. I am open to recommendations from qualified folks.

 

[schmidlap]

Look up your own damn links, and no one is denying that the climate is changing, it's been doing it from day one. It's the cause that's being debated. BTW they've forecast an average hurricane season this year. Not more, not more intense, just average. So shove your fear porn, it's fallen flat in reality ever since you commies began spewing that garbage.

.

You don't need to respect the science and the consensus of the world's climatologists and of virtually all the world's nations concerning the consequences of millions of tonnes of industrial wastes being spewed into the atmosphere if your ideological dogma makes acceptance of the reality a taboo.

https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-pre-industrial-climate-and-why-does-it-matter-78601


​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am not empowered to decree such things. I am open to recommendations from qualified folks.

Didn't say you could decree it.
What do you feel we should do to save the world?

 

[abu afak]

You don't need to respect the science and the consensus of the world's climatologists and of virtually all the world's nations concerning the consequences of millions of tonnes of industrial wastes being spewed into the atmosphere if your ideological dogma makes acceptance of the reality a taboo.

View attachment 789293

What is a pre-industrial climate and why does it matter?


​

You have to Ignore ToddsterTroll: The burden-shifting question-mark Troll.
Instead of Refuting people this Trolling Riddler is always more questions/Demand-detail Fallacy. Most of his One Line 'reply' posts are 6 words and a questions mark. (that are non sequiturs)

If you humor the little hissy-shlt BAITER you'll end up having to give him the derivation of the word 'climate... or how much does a raindrop cost?
He's an ASSHOLE Nit-Picking little teenager with apparently NOTHING else to do.

IGNORE Toad posts except to give him a Negative feedback. Simple really.
Just Swat! him like the annoying Fly he is.
jc456 too.
Never waste your time on them. SWAT!

`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have to Ignore ToddsterTroll: The burden-shifting question-mark Troll.
Instead of Refuting people this Trolling Riddler is always more questions/Demand-detail Fallacy. Most of his One Line 'reply' posts are 6 words and a questions mark. (that are non sequiturs)

If you humor the little hissy-shlt BAITER you'll end up having to give him the derivation of the word 'climate... or how much does a raindrop cost?
He's an ASSHOLE Nit-Picking little teenager with apparently NOTHING else to do.

IGNORE Toad posts except to give him a Negative feedback. Simple really.
Just Swat! him like the annoying Fly he is.
jc456 too.
Never waste your time on them. SWAT!

`

Itchy?

 

[schmidlap]

Didn't say you could decree it.
What do you feel we should do to save the world?

A start is to redress the harm we have caused. Some refuse to, but most acknowledge responsibility.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A start is to redress the harm we have caused. Some refuse to, but most acknowledge responsibility.

Building more nuclear would allow us to generate reliable, carbon-free energy.

 

[EMH]

no one is denying that the climate is changing

There is no question that Earth's climate has been radically different from the past. When Earth has 2 polar oceans, it has no ice = much warmer, atmopshere thicker, oceans higher, humidity off the scale, raining all the time, cat 6-10 canes etc.


But to change the climate you need to change the amount of ice it has, and that really isn't happening right now. Antarctica, 90% of Earth ice, is slowly adding ice every year as it has for 40 million plus. Greenland's ice in the northern half is definitely still growing and thickening. There is a lot of lying about the summer melt of Greenland glaciers south of Arctic Circle. In reality, there is melt, glacier movement forward, which replaces thinner older glaciers with thicker new ones. The Greenland ice is not retreating.

On the other hand, North America Europe and Asia are all moving away from the North Pole, and hence ice on those is melting. 0.3% of Earth ice is on Ellesmere Island, Canada. That will melt as its plate moves SW.


Ice dictates ocean levels, temperature, atmospheric thickness and humidity = CLIMATE

No real change in ice = no climate change

 

[EMH]

Some refuse to, but most acknowledge responsibility

Here is your "harm," moron...

We have two and only two measures of atmospheric temps = satellites and balloons

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.

Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data



NO CONFLICT THERE


Co2 went up, highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE = THEORY REJECTED...



Solution by the Co2 FRAUD, the "the science," = FUDGE the data with "orbit wobble" and "shade issues"



The Co2 fraud is to science what Enron was to accounting....

 

[healthmyths]

A start is to redress the harm we have caused. Some refuse to, but most acknowledge responsibility.

Who is "we"???? China has nearly 2 times as much emissions than the USA and are building more coal power plants.
China is building six times more new coal plants than other countries, report finds.
A new report finds that last year China permitted the equivalent of two coal plants per week. China's renewable sector is also booming.
.
Sounds like you are China lover excusing THEM for doing 2 times as much CO2 emissions in less than 50 years compared to the USA in 100 years !
Now there are several totally less expensive options than EVs.

A)Have you ever heard of Carbon capture and storage (CCS), is a process in which a relatively pure stream of carbon dioxide (CO2) from industrial sources is separated, treated and transported to a long-term storage location. Carbon capture and storage - Wikipedia

B)CO2 can be used to produce fuels and chemical intermediates through several conversion routes but require significant energy input.
The chief cost factor is typically electricity, accounting for between 40-70% of the production costs, and hence very low average grid electricity prices are required for CO2-derived methanol and methane to be competitive,

Putting CO2 to Use – Analysis - IEA

Putting CO2 to Use - Analysis and key findings. A report by the International Energy Agency.

www.iea.org

So Electricity is the biggest COST!!! Wow...so the cost of EV conversions of just Trucks in the USA of building 33,153 nuclear power plants will be definitely more than using CO2 to produce fuels!!! People... there are some truly ignorant people in CHARGE!!!

These two solutions to reducing CO2 are combined totally less expensive i.e.
So AGAIN if 80% of the 166 million private trucks or 132 million are EVs and each truck at 100,000 average miles per truck/ year
source:How Many Miles Do Truckers Drive a Year?
Each truck average 1.89 kWh per Mile Per Truck : Fact: Battery capacity and recharging needs for electric buses in city transit service (Journal Article) | OSTI.GOV
Lets do the math: 132 million trucks at 100,000 miles/year/truck equals 13,200,000,000,000 miles.
13,200,000,000,000 miles at 1.89 kWh per mile or 24,948,000,000,000 kWh and that's just EV Trucks in the USA!
Right NOW....11,070 power plants generate 4,165,030,000,000 kWh or per power plant: 376,244,806 kWh each per year.
FACT: Electricity generation, capacity, and sales in the United States - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
FACT: One power plant at $752,489,612 will generate 376,244,806 kWh per year.
So how many more nuclear power plants will have to be built (if EVEN at a 50% error factor),JUST for EV trucks total usage of 12,474,000,000,000 kWh?
Divide 12,474,000,000,000 kWh by 376,244,806 kWh generated per power plant, or an additional 33,153 nuclear power plants have to be built!
33,153 NEW nuclear power plants at the cost of $752,489,612 EACH plant or total of $24,948,000,000,000!
Just half of the cost to build 33,153 NEW power plants to provide JUST USA EV Trucks could be used to further develop either of the above 2 opportunities!

 

[healthmyths]

Building more nuclear would allow us to generate reliable, carbon-free energy.

I agree... We need to build 33,153 nuclear power plants
33,153 NEW nuclear power plants at the cost of $752,489,612 EACH plant or total of $24,948,000,000,000!
OR
We could concentrate on this option...
CO2 can be used to produce fuels and chemical intermediates through several conversion routes but require significant energy input.
The chief cost factor is typically electricity, accounting for between 40-70% of the production costs, and hence very low average grid electricity prices are required for CO2-derived methanol and methane to be competitive, Putting CO2 to Use – Analysis - IEA
So Electricity is the biggest COST!!! Wow...so the cost of EV conversions of just Trucks in the USA of building 33,153 nuclear power plants will be definitely more than using CO2 to produce fuels!!! People... there are some truly ignorant people in CHARGE!!!

 

[healthmyths]

Building more nuclear would allow us to generate reliable, carbon-free energy.

I agree... We need to build 33,153 nuclear power plants
33,153 NEW nuclear power plants at the cost of $752,489,612 EACH plant or total of $24,948,000,000,000!
OR
We could concentrate on this option...
CO2 can be used to produce fuels and chemical intermediates through several conversion routes but require significant energy input.
The chief cost factor is typically electricity, accounting for between 40-70% of the production costs, and hence very low average grid electricity prices are required for CO2-derived methanol and methane to be competitive, Putting CO2 to Use – Analysis - IEA
So Electricity is the biggest COST!!! Wow...so the cost of EV conversions of just Trucks in the USA of building 33,153 nuclear power plants will be definitely more than using CO2 to produce fuels!!! People... there are some truly ignorant people in CHARGE!!!