Nostra
Diamond Member
- Oct 7, 2019
- 62,426
- 53,570
- 3,615
So, your source is an alt-left PRO MMGW blog.Fake News.Consensus isn't science, moron. It's politics.The actual science is the more energy dense fuel you use, the less carbon emissions there actually is. The order of energy density goes from (least-greatest) wood, coal, oil, gas, then nuclear (which doesn’t have carbon as a byproduct of the process). Wood is at 16 MJ/kg vs coal (depending on the type) is in the range of 20-30MJ/kg. Due to the laws of physics, it takes around twice the amount of carbon expenditure for wood to boil water (boiling water is the method for basically every large scale power generation) compared to coal. Natural gas is at 40 MJ/m3. So, thanks to Isaac Newton natural gas uses at least 33% less carbon byproduct to boil water. On top of that, with the nature of it being gas, and technology allowing precision amounts of gas to obtain the desired temp, there’s far less wasteful burning of it vs a solid fuel. In other words, a 1/m3 of gas goes a lot further than 1/KG of any solid fuel. Maybe you could achieve the same results with a powdered fuel as you would gas, but to powder it would be a process that requires more energy expenditure than gas in its natural form. Obviously because there is no carbon involved in the nuclear process, it’s superior by far. If you “care” about the climate, and you’re not pushing for nuclear, exit the conversation immediately. We haven’t even scratched the surface of what we can do with nuclear. We’re using 80 year old technology, and even then it’s still the far superior option. All because Jane Fonda, Gov Brown, the Sierra Club, and scores of other elites decided to demonize nuclear. Many of them to profit off of the oil business dealings they had (cough* cough* gov Brown), others because they nonsensically conflated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs during the Cold War (cough* cough* Jane Fonda types). And others (cough* cough* the Sierra club) wanted to continue their exploitation of 3rd world countries, because it’s easier to exploit poor people who remain poor by spending vast amounts of energy and money (and vast amount of environmental damage as well as carbon emissions) to cook their food and heat their homes using wood (set up for my next paragraph). It also helps when the philosophy of your little elite Sierra club is a Malthusian one, so fuck those poor people, amaright?Fake news. There was no "scheduled date" for the next glacial advance.That's pure bunk. We have no idea what temperature fluctuations were like 6000 years ago. The granularity of our records is measured in hundreds of years. You can't legitimately claim our temperatures have departed from anything. There is nothing unusual about our current warming.We have been in a long term cooling trend for 6,000 years, True or False?You believe in global warming, so you don't believe in the scientific method.Facts? The only thing you threw out was Vox bullshit.Nobody cares about your healthcare system....especially the spin from America hating Vox idiots.
No we do not actually.
Australia has the best cancer treatment survival rates in the world.
Australia leads global cancer survival rates – but more can be done
An international study shows Australians have the best chance of survival for seven types of cancers.www1.racgp.org.au
Here is a good article about Australian heath care and why over all it gets better outcomes than the USA at much lower cost.
What Australia can teach America about health care
Why the Australian system might represent a realistic path forward for the US.www.vox.com
You don't have to care.
You can continue to naval gaze as many Americans love to do.
I am just throwing the facts out there for the intelligent minority of Americans to consider.
Intelligent people learn from the rest of the world, both good and bad.
I understand, the cult of Trump only believes anything Trump says, nothing else.
All cults work this way.
You sound as if you are involved in the cult of the bubble.
A real true believer.
Though only thing I believe in is scientific method, blue skies and cold Australian beer, the rest is just an opinion.
Yes I do and so does NASA.
Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?
The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.climate.nasa.gov
The Holocene climate was warming and actually proves our current warming in large part iscaused by humans. The warming 6,000 years ago was caused by Earth orbital changes which are currently not occurring or causing such rapid warming.
This is actually more evidence of human caused global warming in our time.
Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.www.ncdc.noaa.gov
" Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."
Here is a basic primer on why previous climate changes are not proof this climate change is not man made, rather proof it is.
"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions."
What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our...skepticalscience.com
I quote the link below again.
"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD....
Fake News, temperatures began recovering at the end of the little ice age, and with warming temperatures, we get rising CO^2 levels, and earth's processes convert some of the excess CO^2 into living cells.
We are cooler than we were 5,000 years ago.
No. The last interglacial lasted about 15,000 years, and we are pacing fairly consistently with that. Everything is as expected.You are the one promoting a Doomsday Cult, I'm just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support your claims, which is the way with doomsday cults. They point to a date when the world is supposed to end, and then they are disappointed when the date passes uneventfully.
Your fake news is faker than the fake news you think is fake news.
The science is clear if you could understand it, the oribital causes of climate change was seeing us going into a cooling period well into the next thousand years but the carbon released from the industrial revolution changed all that.
I think I will trust the majority of climate scientists and NASA before I will trust a cult member always chanting "fake news" when confronted with scientific information they simply do not want to believe.
As I set up in the last paragraph......I mentioned wood even though it’s hardly used in 1st world countries. Not true for 3rd world countries. There’s this crazy idea out there that we can “leap frog” the 3rd world with renewable energies, and bypass coal and gas completely (set up for my 3rd paragraph). Absolutely absurd idea. The 1st world is struggling “renewable energy”. It is not reliable. So what winds up happening in these countries is that people just go back to using wood. Cutting down vast swaths of carbon scrubbing trees, destroying natural habitats, and oh yeah, dumping a hell of a lot more carbon into the atmosphere than they would if we accelerated their development with coal, then to gas, then to nuclear. Obviously I have no problem in helping them develop clean burning coal, clean burning gas, etc. It’s just a simple fact. The more developed your country is, the less emissions there are per person. It also follows that the less resources (physical, time, money, etc) people have to spend producing energy (I.e. cutting down trees, splitting wood, starting and keeping fires) the more time and energy they will have to be productive in other areas and become more prosperous. Having a reliable source of electricity is basically the #1 key on the road to prosperity, and consequently a reduction in carbon emissions.
What people are also not telling you is that not only is solar and wind severely unreliable, the battery/fuel cell tech is not there (never will be until the invention of super conductors), but also the production of fuel cells and panels (which eventually go bad 10 years at best) creates more emissions, and there is NO safe way to dispose of the extremely environmentally hazardous materials used to make them. There simply is no way to get around Isaac Newton’s laws. People think solar panels just sit there and the sun hits them and bam, energy. The sun itself does not boil water on its own (in most areas). Therefore you need to go through an energy costing process in order to get the photons from the sun to be transformed into usable energy. Not only do you need energy to do this, you also need extremely environmentally toxic chemicals to help boost this process. Both fuel cells and the solar panels themselves are made out of extremely toxic materials. Currently the strategy of nations “leading the way with renewable energy” is to pay 3rd world countries to have them take the fuel cell/panel waste to throw in a dump somewhere. And you can bet your bottom dollar they aren’t dumping it in a safe way. Basically, the net energy solar is producing is 2 steps backward to get 3 steps forward, AT BEST, as long as the panels last 10 years WITHOUT the use of fuel cell storage (which also goes bad). You simply cannot get around the laws of physics. Solar/wind is actually way more expensive for citizens. It is so unreliable, no sun, not enough wind, power plants have to stay fully staffed even when shut down, because they will have to continually power up and power back down. Mind you these are plants designed to run continuously, and the constant power-up power-down process is extremely energy inefficient. So, if you live in an area receiving energy from solar panels or wind, you’re paying for the same power plant you’ve been using before plus the solar/wind generators, plus the infrastructure between the renewable generators, plus the costly process (both in carbon emissions and dollars) of powering up and down continuously. As it turns out, our most “renewable” energy is water. Yes it requires energy to boil, but it goes up, comes back down, and we have plenty of it. This is why nuclear is by far the best option. Zero emissions to hear water, a fraction of a percentile of the current waste produced by solar, as well as a very easy and safe way to store it, and oh yeah did mention far less energy and land investment made into building a Nuclear plant. I almost forgot to mention the vast amounts of land needed for solar/wind just produce a fraction of what a standard power plant can produce. You know, land that would otherwise be used by those big green leafy things (the name escapes me) that actually absorb carbon and exhale oxygen. Land that’s also home to the little critters we value so much.
That is a lot of deluded gibberish.
I think I will go with the actual scientists on this one and the consensus is clear, we are warming the planet with carbon emissions.
You do not have to believe it, you do not have to believe in gravity either, but you still have to live with it.
We don't have to live with nutbag proposals to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Yes, there is a scientific consensus that gravity exists.
Now that is always up for challenge through empirical evidence if one can provide that evidence.
Such evidence does not exist.
The same applies to global warming.
Once again I refer you to actual scientists.
Scientific Consensus
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...climate.nasa.gov
Sorry, but the argument for the existence of gravity hasn't changed in quite some time and there is no funny money behind it. There is a stark difference. Gravity is settled science, man made global warming is not.
Oh yes every international scientific body in the world is being bribed. Because as with gravity there is a scientific consensus on this issue.
NASA is being bribed.
Probably by the Secret Society of Spaghetti Monsters Against Fossil Fuels and Vaccines.
- What are the testable statements they affirmed?
- How was this affirmation communicated?
- How many directly affirmed the statements in question 1?
- How many total scientists are their in the world?
You can actually read their methods and papers, that is how science works and it will answer you questions, but you will never consult any source that tells you w
I am worn out, discussing science with you is like trying to discuss quantum physics with a gerbil that just emerged from Elton John's ass.That's because your claim is fake news.Fake News.Consensus isn't science, moron. It's politics.The actual science is the more energy dense fuel you use, the less carbon emissions there actually is. The order of energy density goes from (least-greatest) wood, coal, oil, gas, then nuclear (which doesn’t have carbon as a byproduct of the process). Wood is at 16 MJ/kg vs coal (depending on the type) is in the range of 20-30MJ/kg. Due to the laws of physics, it takes around twice the amount of carbon expenditure for wood to boil water (boiling water is the method for basically every large scale power generation) compared to coal. Natural gas is at 40 MJ/m3. So, thanks to Isaac Newton natural gas uses at least 33% less carbon byproduct to boil water. On top of that, with the nature of it being gas, and technology allowing precision amounts of gas to obtain the desired temp, there’s far less wasteful burning of it vs a solid fuel. In other words, a 1/m3 of gas goes a lot further than 1/KG of any solid fuel. Maybe you could achieve the same results with a powdered fuel as you would gas, but to powder it would be a process that requires more energy expenditure than gas in its natural form. Obviously because there is no carbon involved in the nuclear process, it’s superior by far. If you “care” about the climate, and you’re not pushing for nuclear, exit the conversation immediately. We haven’t even scratched the surface of what we can do with nuclear. We’re using 80 year old technology, and even then it’s still the far superior option. All because Jane Fonda, Gov Brown, the Sierra Club, and scores of other elites decided to demonize nuclear. Many of them to profit off of the oil business dealings they had (cough* cough* gov Brown), others because they nonsensically conflated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs during the Cold War (cough* cough* Jane Fonda types). And others (cough* cough* the Sierra club) wanted to continue their exploitation of 3rd world countries, because it’s easier to exploit poor people who remain poor by spending vast amounts of energy and money (and vast amount of environmental damage as well as carbon emissions) to cook their food and heat their homes using wood (set up for my next paragraph). It also helps when the philosophy of your little elite Sierra club is a Malthusian one, so fuck those poor people, amaright?Fake news. There was no "scheduled date" for the next glacial advance.That's pure bunk. We have no idea what temperature fluctuations were like 6000 years ago. The granularity of our records is measured in hundreds of years. You can't legitimately claim our temperatures have departed from anything. There is nothing unusual about our current warming.We have been in a long term cooling trend for 6,000 years, True or False?You believe in global warming, so you don't believe in the scientific method.Facts? The only thing you threw out was Vox bullshit.Nobody cares about your healthcare system....especially the spin from America hating Vox idiots.
No we do not actually.
Australia has the best cancer treatment survival rates in the world.
Australia leads global cancer survival rates – but more can be done
An international study shows Australians have the best chance of survival for seven types of cancers.
Here is a good article about Australian heath care and why over all it gets better outcomes than the USA at much lower cost.
What Australia can teach America about health care
Why the Australian system might represent a realistic path forward for the US.
You don't have to care.
You can continue to naval gaze as many Americans love to do.
I am just throwing the facts out there for the intelligent minority of Americans to consider.
Intelligent people learn from the rest of the world, both good and bad.
I understand, the cult of Trump only believes anything Trump says, nothing else.
All cults work this way.
You sound as if you are involved in the cult of the bubble.
A real true believer.
Though only thing I believe in is scientific method, blue skies and cold Australian beer, the rest is just an opinion.
Yes I do and so does NASA.
Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?
The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.
The Holocene climate was warming and actually proves our current warming in large part iscaused by humans. The warming 6,000 years ago was caused by Earth orbital changes which are currently not occurring or causing such rapid warming.
This is actually more evidence of human caused global warming in our time.
Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.
" Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."
Here is a basic primer on why previous climate changes are not proof this climate change is not man made, rather proof it is.
"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions."
What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our...skepticalscience.com
I quote the link below again.
"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD....
Fake News, temperatures began recovering at the end of the little ice age, and with warming temperatures, we get rising CO^2 levels, and earth's processes convert some of the excess CO^2 into living cells.
We are cooler than we were 5,000 years ago.
No. The last interglacial lasted about 15,000 years, and we are pacing fairly consistently with that. Everything is as expected.You are the one promoting a Doomsday Cult, I'm just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support your claims, which is the way with doomsday cults. They point to a date when the world is supposed to end, and then they are disappointed when the date passes uneventfully.
Your fake news is faker than the fake news you think is fake news.
The science is clear if you could understand it, the oribital causes of climate change was seeing us going into a cooling period well into the next thousand years but the carbon released from the industrial revolution changed all that.
I think I will trust the majority of climate scientists and NASA before I will trust a cult member always chanting "fake news" when confronted with scientific information they simply do not want to believe.
As I set up in the last paragraph...
What people are also not telling you is that not only is solar and wind severely unreliable, the battery/fuel cell tech is not there (never will be until the invention of super conductors), but also the production of fuel cells and panels (which eventually go bad 10 years at best) creates more emissions, and there is NO safe way to dispose of the extremely environmentally hazardous materials used to make them. There simply is no way to get around Isaac Newton’s laws. People think solar panels just sit there and the sun hits them and bam, energy. The sun itself does not boil water on its own (in most areas). Therefore you need to go through an energy costing process in order to get the photons from the sun to be transformed into usable energy. Not only do you need energy to do this, you also need extremely environmentally toxic chemicals to help boost this process. Both fuel cells and the solar panels themselves are made out of extremely toxic materials. Currently the strategy of nations “leading the way with renewable energy” is to pay 3rd world countries to have them take the fuel cell/panel waste to throw in a dump somewhere. And you can bet your bottom dollar they aren’t dumping it in a safe way. Basically, the net energy solar is producing is 2 steps backward to get 3 steps forward, AT BEST, as long as the panels last 10 years WITHOUT the use of fuel cell storage (which also goes bad). You simply cannot get around the laws of physics. Solar/wind is actually way more expensive for citizens. It is so unreliable, no sun, not enough wind, power plants have to stay fully staffed even when shut down, because they will have to continually power up and power back down. Mind you these are plants designed to run continuously, and the constant power-up power-down process is extremely energy inefficient. So, if you live in an area receiving energy from solar panels or wind, you’re paying for the same power plant you’ve been using before plus the solar/wind generators, plus the infrastructure between the renewable generators, plus the costly process (both in carbon emissions and dollars) of powering up and down continuously. As it turns out, our most “renewable” energy is water. Yes it requires energy to boil, but it goes up, comes back down, and we have plenty of it. This is why nuclear is by far the best option. Zero emissions to hear water, a fraction of a percentile of the current waste produced by solar, as well as a very easy and safe way to store it, and oh yeah did mention far less energy and land investment made into building a Nuclear plant. I almost forgot to mention the vast amounts of land needed for solar/wind just produce a fraction of what a standard power plant can produce. You know, land that would otherwise be used by those big green leafy things (the name escapes me) that actually absorb carbon and exhale oxygen. Land that’s also home to the little critters we value so much.
That is a lot of deluded gibberish.
I think I will go with the actual scientists on this one and the consensus is clear, we are warming the planet with carbon emissions.
You do not have to believe it, you do not have to believe in gravity either, but you still have to live with it.
We don't have to live with nutbag proposals to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Yes, there is a scientific consensus that gravity exists.
Now that is always up for challenge through empirical evidence if one can provide that evidence.
Such evidence does not exist.
The same applies to global warming.
Once again I refer you to actual scientists.
Scientific Consensus
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...
Sorry, but the argument for the existence of gravity hasn't changed in quite some time and there is no funny money behind it. There is a stark difference. Gravity is settled science, man made global warming is not.
Oh yes every international scientific body in the world is being bribed. Because as with gravity there is a scientific consensus on this issue.
NASA is being bribed.
Probably by the Secret Society of Spaghetti Monsters Against Fossil Fuels and Vaccines.
- What are the testable statements they affirmed?
- How was this affirmation communicated?
- How many directly affirmed the statements in question 1?
- How many total scientists are their in the world?
I am worn out, discussing science with you is like trying to discuss quantum physics with a gerbil that just emerged from Elton John's ass.
You claim that "97% of Scientists" agree on something, but you have no clue what the testable statement is that they all agree on, or even if the statement they agree on is testable.
You claim that "97%" agree, but you don't now how many scientists were actually asked, and you don't know what they were asked, and you don't know how these affirmative answers were conveyed.
Of course you find this exhausting, you are claiming great certainty about something that you actually have no information on.
Do you think all scientists were actually asked a particular question and then 97% of them gave the same answer? Were they called on the phone? Were they mailed a questionnaire?
These are simple questions and you haven't a clue, because the claim is fake news. I don't think you realized this before you tried to support it, so, you're welcome!
Fake News.
- What are the testable statements they affirmed?
- How was this affirmation communicated?
- How many directly affirmed the statements in question 1?
- How many total scientists are their in the world?
I am not concerned with googling for you or going down a rabbit hole of your irrational questioning.
Might as well ask how many wizards concur with global warming?
If you ever want to learn about it (and I know you don't) here is one is scientific explanation of the counted consensus.
The 97% consensus on global warming
Got it.
