Next mining ‘golden age’ to be fuelled by green energy demand

[peacefan]

Based on your rather silly other posts, I doubt that.

you "doubt" (read : shun) everything that doesn't fit into your existing world-views,
and that's entirely your problem.

 

[westwall]

you "doubt" (read : shun) everything that doesn't fit into your existing world-views,
and that's entirely your problem.

My existing world view is based on scientific research that goes back centuries.

Yours is based on computer derived fiction. And religious faith.

 

[peacefan]

My existing world view is based on scientific research that goes back centuries.

Yours is based on computer derived fiction. And religious faith.

so eh, your world view is based on outdated science without even as much as the aid of computer models.

mine is based on the latest science with the aid of computers, and stands a much better chance of being accurate than yours.

nuff said.

 

[westwall]

so eh, your world view is based on outdated science without even as much as the aid of computer models.

mine is based on the latest science with the aid of computers, and stands a much better chance of being accurate than yours.

nuff said.

Outdated? You are the silly person who is looking at windmills as a viable energy alternative.

We abandoned those CENTURIES ago because they are inefficient. Guess what....they STILL ARE!

The computer derived fiction you love to trot out has a 100% failure rate.

Yup, psychics have a better predictive rate than your computer models.

Like I said, you are a scientific illiterate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

sunburn, forest fires, firestorms, you name it.
you won't see it, until it's too late, if you keep your heads in the sand.

CO2 is going to give me sunburn?
Is your brain injury recent, or have you been brain damaged for a while now?

 

[Oddball]

denialist.

Fact, Gomer Pyle....They're a net energy negative, and you're to much of a dead-ender to recognize the fact.

 

[peacefan]

Toddsterpatriot Oddball westwall fact is : MANY agree with my stances on climate change, and call you climate deniers. for good reason.
and i refuse to keep repeating myself, especially that point that green tech will develop itself more when given room on the markets by govt. mandate

hell, i'd almost endorse Biden instead of Trump over this.
but more, much more is at stake in that decision.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot Oddball westwall fact is : MANY agree with my stances on climate change,

Yes, there are a lot of stupid people out there.

Feel free to waste trillions of your own money on "green energy", leave my money out of it.

 

[peacefan]

Yes, there are a lot of stupid people out there.

Feel free to waste trillions of your own money on "green energy", leave my money out of it.

how would you feel if i'd say i'm unwilling to pay taxes towards general-purpose govt efforts?
you'd say : tough luck, pay up, or spend your days in jail.

 

[westwall]

Toddsterpatriot Oddball westwall fact is : MANY agree with my stances on climate change, and call you climate deniers. for good reason.
and i refuse to keep repeating myself, especially that point that green tech will develop itself more when given room on the markets by govt. mandate

hell, i'd almost endorse Biden instead of Trump over this.
but more, much more is at stake in that decision.

Who cares. The science, and history say that your sources are frauds.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

how would you feel if i'd say i'm unwilling to pay taxes towards general-purpose govt efforts?
you'd say : tough luck, pay up, or spend your days in jail.

If you want to waste billions reducing Dutch CO2 a tiny amount while China increases CO2 a lot, go for it. Your stupid waste of money won't save the planet. Giving your country more expensive, less reliable energy won't save the planet.

 

[peacefan]

Who cares. The science, and history say that your sources are frauds.

so now we are both hiding behind science.
just great. not.

 

[westwall]

so now we are both hiding behind science.
just great. not.

No, I am referring to science. You refer to science fiction.

Computer models aren't real. They aren't accurate, they are not data.

Or, to put it even more simply, all of the "studies" you love to trot out all start with this sentence "we use a simple model to..."

F1 uses the most advanced computer modeling ever developed. They are only measuring 6 variables, instead of the hundreds that would need to be modeled for our climate, and even with that, their success rate is less than .1%.

 

[peacefan]

westwall ehm; Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? - Carbon Brief

see also : https://www.google.com/search?q=cli...INzYyOWowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[westwall]

westwall ehm; Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? - Carbon Brief

see also : https://www.google.com/search?q=cli...INzYyOWowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That's an opinion piece, and it is wrong. Mathematics Journals have tested the climate models and found that ALL of them will show a rise in temperatures no matter what numbers you plug into them.

Do you understand what that means?

 

[peacefan]

That's an opinion piece, and it is wrong. Mathematics Journals have tested the climate models and found that ALL of them will show a rise in temperatures no matter what numbers you plug into them.

Do you understand what that means?

yeah, that those models are biased / pre-engineered for political purposes. IF you're right.
how were those models tested? link please!

 

[westwall]

yeah, that those models are biased / pre-engineered for political purposes. IF you're right.
how were those models tested? link please!

No, they are just poorly done. Simple models are exactly that, simple.

The CFD models used in F1 cost tens of millions of dollars.

The models used by the climatologists cost a few thousand.

You want to regulate humanity based on crap models.