Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[flacaltenn]

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

It's the DISSENT that has been muzzled for DECADES. Virtual BLACKOUT of news, new studies that DOWNGRADE the potency of GW. Authors BLACKBALLED.

Who's silencing the minions of morons SCREAMING about GW? It's full speed ahead on follies like worldwide ESG programs, killing fossil fuels without having viable alternatives and SCREAMING Scandinavian kidlet --- Greta Thuneberg becoming "person of the year" for YELLING at the world about not doing enough-- fast enough at the UN.

Are YOU being silenced? Would be kinda weird since I haven't heard you argue any science here.

 

[Billo_Really]

It's the DISSENT that has been muzzled for DECADES. Virtual BLACKOUT of news, new studies that DOWNGRADE the potency of GW. Authors BLACKBALLED.

Who's silencing the minions of morons SCREAMING about GW? It's full speed ahead on follies like worldwide ESG programs, killing fossil fuels without having viable alternatives and SCREAMING Scandinavian kidlet --- Greta Thuneberg becoming "person of the year" for YELLING at the world about not doing enough-- fast enough at the UN.

Are YOU being silenced? Would be kinda weird since I haven't heard you argue any science here.

You don't need climate models or experts telling you what is going on, you can see it with your own eyes. Greenland, Alaska, Antarctica, all show you are FOS!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The cost of the fuel used by a fossil-fueled powerplant during the course of its lifetime dwarfs all other capital expenditures the facility requires. It is idiocy to claim that an oil or gas powered plant is economically more efficient than solar or wind or any other renewable technology.

Majority of New Renewables Undercut Cheapest Fossil Fuel on Cost

Countries urged to power past coal as new report confirms renewables would bring cost savings of USD 156 billion to emerging economies.

www.irena.org

Renewable Power Remains Cost-Competitive amid Fossil Fuel Crisis

New IRENA report shows almost two-thirds of renewable power added in 2021 had lower costs than the cheapest coal-fired options in G20 countries.

www.irena.org

https://unfccc.int/news/renewable-power-remains-cost-competitive-amid-fossil-fuel-crisis

Renewable Energy Prices Hit Record Lows: How Can Utilities Benefit From Unstoppable Solar And Wind?

If falling prices have made renewable energy unstoppable in the U.S., what does that mean for utilities? If the question is determined by smart policy, the answer may be financial opportunity.

www.forbes.com

The cost of renewable energy is increasingly undercutting fossils | World Economic Forum

Before we talk about "free fuel", let's take a look at a more simplistic idea
from one of my favorite simplistic Dims...err...Dems.

AOC wanted to retrofit every building and home in the U.S. so they can be “energy-efficient.”

Is that a good idea?

If you spent $500 to better insulate your house to save $500 a year in fuel, that would be a no-brainer, like AOC.

After 1 year, you'll have replenished that $500 in your bank account and every year after that
you get $500 of "free money" from the savings. That'd be a great idea. Right?

Now, what if the cost was $30,000. Is that still a good idea?

 

[jc456]

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?

what happened in Germany then?

Germany's 'Green' Energy Disaster Is A Warning To The United States

Germany’s energy problems are self-inflicted. Ours will be, as well, if we follow its lead in pursuing 'green' energy.

thefederalist.com

 

[jc456]

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"???

I'm still waiting for Michael Mann to show us his data.

 

[jc456]

Before we talk about "free fuel", let's take a look at a more simplistic idea
from one of my favorite simplistic Dims...err...Dems.

AOC wanted to retrofit every building and home in the U.S. so they can be “energy-efficient.”

Is that a good idea?

If you spent $500 to better insulate your house to save $500 a year in fuel, that would be a no-brainer, like AOC.

After 1 year, you'll have replenished that $500 in your bank account and every year after that
you get $500 of "free money" from the savings. That'd be a great idea. Right?

Now, what if the cost was $30,000. Is that still a good idea?

she wanted the tax payer to fund that 30k, and, that 30k is for every building in the nation. I wonder what Ole Crick thinks that cost is. I wonder if he'd still say it's free.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

she wanted the tax payer to fund that 30k, and, that 30k is for every building in the nation. I wonder what Ole Crick thinks that cost is. I wonder if he'd still say it's free.

Libs aren't very strong when it comes to econ.

 

[Crick]

Before we talk about "free fuel", let's take a look at a more simplistic idea
from one of my favorite simplistic Dims...err...Dems.

AOC wanted to retrofit every building and home in the U.S. so they can be “energy-efficient.”

Is that a good idea?

If you spent $500 to better insulate your house to save $500 a year in fuel, that would be a no-brainer, like AOC.

After 1 year, you'll have replenished that $500 in your bank account and every year after that
you get $500 of "free money" from the savings. That'd be a great idea. Right?

Now, what if the cost was $30,000. Is that still a good idea?

That's a question for a sixth grader Todd. As I've pointed out here on multiple occasions, we are never going to come to an agreement because I value emission-free energy highly and you couldn't care less. There's no point to this debate until we come to some understanding. And it tickles me to see you discussing the shortcomings you claim to perceive among democrats with jc. That's like getting Donald Trump's opinion on the value of honesty.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's a question for a sixth grader Todd. As I've pointed out here on multiple occasions, we are never going to come to an agreement because I value emission-free energy highly and you couldn't care less. There's no point to this debate until we come to some understanding. And it tickles me to see you discussing the shortcomings you claim to perceive among democrats with jc. That's like getting Donald Trump's opinion on the value of honesty.

That's a question for a sixth grader Todd.

That's perfect because it was a policy from a sixth grader.

As I've pointed out here on multiple occasions, we are never going to come to an agreement because I value emission-free energy highly and you couldn't care less.

If you have one that's cheaper than nat gas or nuclear, post it.

There's no point to this debate until we come to some understanding.

As soon as you take those econ classes, we can talk more as equals.

it tickles me to see you discussing the shortcomings you claim to perceive among democrats with jc

Well, he seems to have a better grasp of the economics. Then again pretty much everyone does.

 

[flacaltenn]

You don't need climate models or experts telling you what is going on, you can see it with your own eyes. Greenland, Alaska, Antarctica, all show you are FOS!

Hey Billo -- I'm kinda patient and not easily triggered. Just want you to look up something.

Go read about Antartica and "volcanic fissures" under the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. This is NEW GLOBAL WARNING science since about 2006 or so. Where they FINALLY MAPPED many ACTIVE underwater fissures at the FOOT of the massive glaciers that are rolling quicker into the sea.

We COULD see devastation from loss of that coastal glacier support. BUT the CAUSE WOULD NOT LIKELY BE from a 1DegC temp rise in 100 years when there is a TOASTER OVEN under the coastal FOOTINGS of those glaciers.

The science aint settled and there's 20 years or MORE OF BAD SCIENCE that will just hang out like zombies on the web forever.

 

[Billo_Really]

Hey Billo -- I'm kinda patient and not easily triggered. Just want you to look up something.

Go read about Antartica and "volcanic fissures" under the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. This is NEW GLOBAL WARNING science since about 2006 or so. Where they FINALLY MAPPED many ACTIVE underwater fissures at the FOOT of the massive glaciers that are rolling quicker into the sea.

We COULD see devastation from loss of that coastal glacier support. BUT the CAUSE WOULD NOT LIKELY BE from a 1DegC temp rise in 100 years when there is a TOASTER OVEN under the coastal FOOTINGS of those glaciers.

The science aint settled and there's 20 years or MORE OF BAD SCIENCE that will just hang out like zombies on the web forever.

Dude, I will concede you present a very good and sincere argument and I applaud you for that. I will do as you ask and read about "volcanic fissures". We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue, my friend.

 

[Crick]

Hey Billo -- I'm kinda patient and not easily triggered. Just want you to look up something.

Go read about Antartica and "volcanic fissures" under the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. This is NEW GLOBAL WARNING science since about 2006 or so. Where they FINALLY MAPPED many ACTIVE underwater fissures at the FOOT of the massive glaciers that are rolling quicker into the sea.

We COULD see devastation from loss of that coastal glacier support. BUT the CAUSE WOULD NOT LIKELY BE from a 1DegC temp rise in 100 years when there is a TOASTER OVEN under the coastal FOOTINGS of those glaciers.

The science aint settled and there's 20 years or MORE OF BAD SCIENCE that will just hang out like zombies on the web forever.

I'm wondering how, if dozens of such fissures are now melting the WAIS ice shelf, how that ice shelf ever developed in the first place.

 

[jc456]

I'm wondering how, if dozens of such fissures are now melting the WAIS ice shelf, how that ice shelf ever developed in the first place.

Derp, there weren't fissures then? I mean, you really aren't very bright.

 

[Crick]

I'm wondering how, if dozens of such fissures are now melting the WAIS ice shelf, how that ice shelf ever developed in the first place.

This was intended as a serious question. The amount of time necessary for the WAIS ice shelf and the Pine and Thwaites glaciers to develop has to be hundreds of thousands of years. And while a single volcano can lie dormant for a thousand years, the odds of the dozens or even hundreds of fissures you claim to have been discovered under the ice all remaining dormant for that length of time and now all becoming active just beggars belief. Do you have a response?

 

[jc456]

This was intended as a serious question. The amount of time necessary for the WAIS ice shelf and the Pine and Thwaites glaciers to develop has to be hundreds of thousands of years. And while a single volcano can lie dormant for a thousand years, the odds of the dozens or even hundreds of fissures you claim to have been discovered under the ice all remaining dormant for that length of time and now all becoming active just beggars belief. Do you have a response?

more evidence you haven't a clue.

 

[jc456]

You don't need climate models or experts telling you what is going on, you can see it with your own eyes. Greenland, Alaska, Antarctica, all show you are FOS!

what is it you think you see?

 

[Crick]

This was intended as a serious question. The amount of time necessary for the WAIS ice shelf and the Pine and Thwaites glaciers to develop has to be hundreds of thousands of years. And while a single volcano can lie dormant for a thousand years, the odds of the dozens or even hundreds of fissures you claim to have been discovered under the ice all remaining dormant for that length of time and now all becoming active just beggars belief. FCT, Do you have a response?

jc456, I suspect that you hold the USMB record for the number of people that have you on IGNORE.

 

[jc456]

jc456, I suspect that you hold the USMB record for the number of people that have you on IGNORE.

You act like that would bother me. That merely says you can't debate.

 

[Crick]

You act like that would bother me. That merely says you can't debate.

It's not me fool, I AM debating you. It's everyone else. No one wants to talk to you, even those with similar viewpoints.

So, let's get down to brass tacks. Do you accept the process of greenhouse warming?

 

[jc456]

It's not me fool, I AM debating you. It's everyone else. No one wants to talk to you, even those with similar viewpoints.

So, let's get down to brass tacks. Do you accept the process of greenhouse warming?

same goes for them. I will not sit idly by while idiots poop in here about subjects they can't back up personally. Can't debate, then I don't need to discuss with them. If you're going to say something is cheaper, prove how it is. To date, not one poster has. Why are all you warmers afraid to back your claims. Educate me.