The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[flacaltenn]

Name them.

North Korea for one. What democracies have failed?

You truly are batshit crazy aren't you. A country who's citizens are resorting to cannibalism is far from a successful one. Just wait till the board finds out this little post of yours!lmao

"New reports of starving North Koreans resorting to cannibalism come amid renewed tensions between Pyongyang and Washington

A North Korean man suffering starvation was put to death after it was learned he ate two of his children, a new report claims. While the man’s wife was away, he reportedly killed his eldest daughter and then his son after he had witnessed the murder. ‘We have meat,’ he told his wife on her return."


Read more: New reports of starving North Koreans resorting to cannibalism come amid renewed tensions between Pyongyang and Washington - NY Daily News

SEOUL, South Korea — Freighters carrying aid shipments of rice and instant noodles are being sent to North Korea, the first food aid the South Korean government has sent to the North since President Lee Myung-bak was elected here in early 2008.


U.S. envoys are finalizing arrangements for the first U.S. government food aid shipment to impoverished North Korea in three years.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/world/asia/26korea.html?_r=0


U.S. finalizing North Korea food shipment in China - World - CBC News

Just when I thought this troll encounter couldn't get any creepier...

Bring in the dogs, keep your fingers in your pockets and Good Luck...

 

[flacaltenn]

At this point I still have my doubts regarding the extent in whiich global warming is caused by man ( 30%-70% ? who knows.)

But I can't agree with your statement. If you put solar panels in your roof and a solar heater you become less dependent on the government and the big corporations which may feel tempted to increase the price of electricity arbitrarily.

The same happens if you get a diesel or a hybrid car, you become less dependent on oil companies an the tax asociated with gasoline.

How can such a measure be about "control of the people"?

Of course, solar is not an option for everyone. Someone living in Seatle might find a hard time harvesting energy from the sun , but someone living in the southwest will surely recover the investment quickly enough.

We already have enough "control of the people" with the American government storing every email and social network profile for their own purposes. I certainly don't think a little bit of alternative energy production can make things worse.

Part two of my post was where the rich people pushing these "green" energy systems get to relieve you of your money. Please note I've had a solar system for nearly 30 years now and it is OK as an emergency backup system, but it could never run my house on its own.

Yes of course , big companies will allways want a share on an area where there is proffit.
But then the same happens with big oil and big pharma companies.
This is no different.
My point here is that you as a solar panel owner are at least more independent, not more dependent .
I think no tax deduction is needed. Cheap fuels are being depleted and the shift to solar or wind will come naturally as the fuel prices continue to go up

Finally the main reson to shift to this technologies should be ecology and health and not GW.

Pic from China:

Don't ya just love it when folks who are sucking public dollars to install solar and operate a power company with subsidies start claiming how "independent" they are?

You are paying for grid back-up to be there 24/7 so when it's NIGHT or cloudy or you have 4 inches of snow on your panels, the FULL CAPACITY of fossil fuel or nuclear or hydro is there to back you up.

And --- the govt is forcing the power companies to take your energy FIRST -- causing those RELIABLE generators to take a loss idling their plants.

Wind and solar are nothing but SUPPLEMENTS to the grid. CAN'T reliably power an advanced civilization.. Your advantage?? Cali is destined soon NOT TO BE "an advanced civilization"...

 

[PMZ]

It's complete bullshit.

The climate has changed so dramatically over the course of millions of years, and there weren't apes driving SUV's. Whatever effect human endeavors have on the climate are infinitesimal if there is any effect at all.

Pollution and toxic waste are a separate issue, and no sane person thinks it has no relevance, but the whole global warming cult is being used to reduce the quality of life for the most prosperous people.

Great guess, but completely wrong. Questions like this are why we have science. Science has done it's job and told us what the problem is, and predicted what we can expect in terms of consequences.

Politicians, and engineers and businesses are working on solutions which will lead to the minimum cost future of energy and the minimum impact consequences.

The Flat Earth Society represented here is cheering for the failure of everybody.

We have democracy to deal with them and it increasingly will.

 

[itfitzme]

Absorbtion leads to radiative efficiency, radiative forcing, radiative effect and climate sensitivity.

According to the Beer-Lambert Law the proportion of radiation absorbed upon passing through a distance x of a medium is

1 − e^(−ax)
*
where a is a parameter that reflects the concentration of the absorber and its radiative efficiency. The parameter a is the product of two terms. One is the concentration ρ of the absorber and the other is a characteristic of the absorber α, called its radiative efficiency.

a is a parameter that reflects the concentration of the absorber and its radiative efficiency. The parameter a is the product of two terms. One is the concentration ρ of the absorber and the other is a characteristic of the absorber α, called its radiative efficiency.

When there are more than one greenhouse gas the value of a is

a = Σ αiρi*
*
where αi and ρi are the radiative efficiency and linear density of constituent i.

*Radiative forcing is the change in the energy input to the Earth's climate system over some period of time due to some external change. It is measured in watts per square meter (W/m²). It is a useful concept and leads to the definition of the climate sensitivity parameter λ, i.e.,

λ = ΔTs/ΔF*
*
where ΔTs is the change in the Earth's global mean surface temperature and ΔF is the radiative forcing.

radiative forcing is, to a reasonable approximation, a logarithmic function of CO2

ΔF=RF=beta*ln(CO2/CO2_ref)

Climate sensitivity*

s = dT(ln2/ln(2C/C))=dT and

s=λ = ΔTs/ΔF

RF=ΔF=beta*ln(CO2/CO2_ref)

Which yields,

s=λ = ΔTs/(beta*ln(CO2/CO2_ref))

rearranging,

ΔTs= s*(beta*ln(CO2/CO2_ref))

We make*adjust the constants so we have a doubling*and use

radiative effect= RE*

and*

RE_2-RE_1=Δ€= ¥*ΔTs=¥*(T_2-T_1)

Δ€=*λ*(£*ln(2*CO2_ref/CO2_ref))/ln(2)

to solve for s*£=*λ*£

s, or λ, is climate sensitivity

£ is a constant that was maintained when the form was adjusted to be "doubling". *It is simply a scaling factor.

This*

Δ€= ¥*ΔTs=¥*(T_2-T_1)= λ*(£*ln(2*CO2_ref/CO2_ref))/ln(2)

¥*(T_2-T_1)= λ*(£*ln(2*CO2_ref/CO2_ref))/ln(2)

¥*ΔTs=¥*T_2-¥*T_1

= ((λ*£)/ln(2))*(ln(2*CO2_ref)-ln(CO2_ref))

suggesting

¥*T_2= ((λ*£)/ln(2))*(ln(2*CO2_ref))

¥*T_1= ((λ*£)/ln(2))*(ln(CO2_ref))

And with a litte effort, we can tie*radiative forcing, radiative effect and climate sensitivity together.

That just leaves tying %absorbtion and*radiative efficiency to*radiative forcing, radiative effect and climate sensitivity.

%absorbtion and radiative efficiency are related by

%absorbtion=1 − e^(−Σ(αiρi)x)

x is distance,*ρi is*concentration of the absorber and*αi is the radiative efficiency*of the absorber

Radiative forcing, radiative effect and climate sensitivity are related by

s=λ = ΔTs/ΔF is climate sensitivity
s=λ = ΔTs/(beta*ln(CO2/CO2_ref))

ΔF=RF=beta*ln(CO2/CO2_ref) is radiative forcing

RE is radiative effect, € where

Δ€= ¥*ΔTs=¥*(T_2-T_1)= λ*(£*ln(2*CO2_ref/CO2_ref))/ln(2)

£ and ¥ are scaling constants to make sure it all worked out.*These tie temperature in, along with anomoly, and relate £/(¥*ln(2)) to T,*λ*and CO2 as

£/(¥*ln(2))=T/(λ*ln(CO2_ref)).

All in all, it gives the ln function as a concequence of*%absorbtion=1 − e^(−ax), a consequence that will be quite a trick to back into.

This will be a consequence of how the (1-e^t) effect of thermal equilibrium which will tie black body radiation which will yield a poisson distribution. *This is a consequence of the normal distribution of quantum mechanics which, as is shown in queuing theory, yields the poisson distribution.

IanC's on a right track with the billiard ball thing.**Somewhere, I ran across a powerpoint that detailed the modes of oscilation for CO2. *

We might consider viewing the gas as a black body radiator.*At thermal equilibrium, they will emit at the same rate of absorbtion.

There are a few ways to get there, that's science, internally consistent.

Maybe just look up*Beer-Lambert Law.

And it all just seems like a bit too much work to show how it ties together such that, over small changes in CO2, like 300 to 380, the change is nearly linear.*

--_

Saturation, Nonlinearity and Overlap in the Radiative Efficiencies of Greenhouse Gases

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/9/5539/2009/acp-9-5539-2009.pdf*

 

[Katzndogz]

All democracies fail. It's built in.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage

 

[westwall]

Most of those plumes are steam. There are certainly particulates in there as well, but the VAST majority of that picture is nothing but water. Scare photo's like that fail on multiple points. You'll have to do better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/w...tal-degradation-in-china-is-growing.html?_r=0

Air Pollution Linked to 1.2 Million Premature Deaths in China
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/w...on-linked-to-1-2-million-deaths-in-china.html

Scary enough ?

Luckily the US has had a shift from coal to gas in recent years which has effectively reduced the overall US pollution.

Oh goody! More amorphous claims with no hard data to support them! Here's the deal, pollution is bad, there's no denying that. However, the claims made by your environmentalist writers are likewise harmful because they lead uninformed people to do really, really, stupid and destructive things.

To whit look up the history of MTBE and how they did MORE environmental damage in ten years to the state of California than all the oil companies have to the WORLD in 100 years.

 

[itfitzme]

Beer-Lambert law seems to be the basis of absorbtion/radiative physics of gases.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer–Lambert_law

Yuck! Tell you what, while you'all are reading the Beer-Lambert Law, I'll be reading some beer bottle labels.

 

[westwall]

North Korea for one. What democracies have failed?

You truly are batshit crazy aren't you. A country who's citizens are resorting to cannibalism is far from a successful one. Just wait till the board finds out this little post of yours!lmao

"New reports of starving North Koreans resorting to cannibalism come amid renewed tensions between Pyongyang and Washington

A North Korean man suffering starvation was put to death after it was learned he ate two of his children, a new report claims. While the man’s wife was away, he reportedly killed his eldest daughter and then his son after he had witnessed the murder. ‘We have meat,’ he told his wife on her return."


Read more: New reports of starving North Koreans resorting to cannibalism come amid renewed tensions between Pyongyang and Washington - NY Daily News

SEOUL, South Korea — Freighters carrying aid shipments of rice and instant noodles are being sent to North Korea, the first food aid the South Korean government has sent to the North since President Lee Myung-bak was elected here in early 2008.


U.S. envoys are finalizing arrangements for the first U.S. government food aid shipment to impoverished North Korea in three years.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/world/asia/26korea.html?_r=0


U.S. finalizing North Korea food shipment in China - World - CBC News

Just when I thought this troll encounter couldn't get any creepier...

Bring in the dogs, keep your fingers in your pockets and Good Luck...

Oh, I don't need luck with the quad trolls. They're their own worst enemy.

 

[westwall]

There are several in the world today that haven't failed yet.

Show us one democracy that has failed.

I would have said that it was obvious that "failed", in this context, means been replaced, by the governed, with something better. A violent takeover of any government by another party or leader or philosophy doesn't mean the the original government failed, it merely means that it wasn't robust enough to maintain authority.

Thus the North Korean government still has power over North Korea. And there have been democratic governments overthrown.

And this is why the conservative vision of a weak US government makes no sense to realists.

What lasts are strong governments hired and fired by the people in a democratic way. The control of strong government of, by, and for, the people. Not the weakening of government to the point where it can be overthrown.

I see. Your definition of a successful government is one that can destroy its citizenry at will. Good to know....

 

[itfitzme]

All democracies fail. *It's built in.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."*
“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage

"vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,"

How's that suppose to work?

 

[PMZ]

All democracies fail. It's built in.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage

Put another way, you believe that mankind is incapable of freedom in the long term. Incapable of self rule. Mankind will default to tyranny.

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, mine is that mankind evolves culturally year by year. Future performance may be different from past experiences.

Of course both of our opinions are immaterial. We'll just have to wait forever to find out the entire future of humanity.

 

[PMZ]

There are several in the world today that haven't failed yet.

Show us one democracy that has failed.

I would have said that it was obvious that "failed", in this context, means been replaced, by the governed, with something better. A violent takeover of any government by another party or leader or philosophy doesn't mean the the original government failed, it merely means that it wasn't robust enough to maintain authority.

Thus the North Korean government still has power over North Korea. And there have been democratic governments overthrown.

And this is why the conservative vision of a weak US government makes no sense to realists.

What lasts are strong governments hired and fired by the people in a democratic way. The control of strong government of, by, and for, the people. Not the weakening of government to the point where it can be overthrown.

I see. Your definition of a successful government is one that can destroy its citizenry at will. Good to know....

In today's world, any country that is to maintain it's place in the world must be strong enough militarily to prevent being taken over by others. Or so undesirable in location and wealth that nobody would benefit from taking them over.

Apparently your idea is that any country strong enough to survive will turn on itself and conquer it's own populace. Of course, that brings up the question of why?

Americans are fortunate to have the military strong enough to resist all outside threats, with a Constitution and democracy that makes the government a tool of the people rather than vice versa.

Not to say that there are no threats. The biggest one of course is represented by people like you. People whose minds have been bought by a minority of Americans, through media, in an attempt to compromise American democracy by allowing the few to obtain the votes of the many through the use of propaganda (or it's politically correct name, advertising).

Democracy has one protection against that, education, the informed electorate. Apparently, in the past, we've been only marginally effective at keeping education ahead of the threat.

Will we be able to improve that marginal performance to a level of robustness that keeps democracy safe?

Americans hope so. Those conspiring to turn our democracy into a plutocracy hope not.

We will see.

 

[PMZ]

All democracies fail. *It's built in.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."*
“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage

"vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,"

How's that suppose to work?

"“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years."

Can anyone think of even one of the "world's great civilizations" that only lasted 200 years?

 

[CultureCitizen]

You mean the government that gives you a tax deduction based on things like adding solar panels to your home?

And of course you mean the oil corporations who also make diesel? And again the big government that is giving out tax deductions on hybrid cars as well...

Whether we like it or not, fossil fuels are what runs the world. SO far nothing has been a viable alternative. In the future who knows,but right now you can no sooner avoid fossil fuel use,or the big corporations that control it, or the big government which you will have to depend on for more public transportation the more you try and avoid driving your car.

In california with tier3 consumption the cost is about 30 cents per kwh.
That's way above the cost for solar . So even without tax deduction you are better off with solar than connected to the grid ( yes you can't be off grid the whole time , but in the mid term you will save money ).

Above that you have the fact that you can generate your OWN energy. How does that make you more dependent? I am franky puzzled.

Yes of course oil companies produce diesel but you will need less diesel than gasoline.
This hybrid yields 48 mpg in cities
Toyota Prius Research All Models and Prices - MSN Autos

And this amazing diesel car yields 88 MPG
HYUNDAI i20 1.1 CRDi Blue 75PS 5dr - CO2 84g/km

So yes you are still less dependent on oil companies with a diesel than with a regular gasoline car... kind of obvious.

So then you are stating a personal solar panel system is a viable alternative to conventional grid power? Really? And you want to explain how that's going to be possible with the future heading towards plug-in cars?

And you just missed the point. Diesel made by the same people your previously said you could get independence from by going diesel or a hybrid... A hybrid still uses petroleum products...

You're not advocating independence, you're advocating cutting back a bit.Not exactly the same thing is it...

And as I said before, the pipedream, idealistic fantasies aren't going to cut it and the dismissing of reality doesn't help your cause..

YOU are missing the point : a diesel car uses 3 times less fuel than a gasoline one.
If you can't do basic math... there's no point in arguing with you.

Solar cells can have batteries to provide energy overnight... and yes you need a sunny place to use them efectively.

 

[westwall]

There are several in the world today that haven't failed yet.

Show us one democracy that has failed.

I would have said that it was obvious that "failed", in this context, means been replaced, by the governed, with something better. A violent takeover of any government by another party or leader or philosophy doesn't mean the the original government failed, it merely means that it wasn't robust enough to maintain authority.

Thus the North Korean government still has power over North Korea. And there have been democratic governments overthrown.

And this is why the conservative vision of a weak US government makes no sense to realists.

What lasts are strong governments hired and fired by the people in a democratic way. The control of strong government of, by, and for, the people. Not the weakening of government to the point where it can be overthrown.

I see. Your definition of a successful government is one that can destroy its citizenry at will. Good to know....

In today's world, any country that is to maintain it's place in the world must be strong enough militarily to prevent being taken over by others. Or so undesirable in location and wealth that nobody would benefit from taking them over.

Apparently your idea is that any country strong enough to survive will turn on itself and conquer it's own populace. Of course, that brings up the question of why?

Americans are fortunate to have the military strong enough to resist all outside threats, with a Constitution and democracy that makes the government a tool of the people rather than vice versa.

Not to say that there are no threats. The biggest one of course is represented by people like you. People whose minds have been bought by a minority of Americans, through media, in an attempt to compromise American democracy by allowing the few to obtain the votes of the many through the use of propaganda (or it's politically correct name, advertising).

Democracy has one protection against that, education, the informed electorate. Apparently, in the past, we've been only marginally effective at keeping education ahead of the threat.

Will we be able to improve that marginal performance to a level of robustness that keeps democracy safe?

Americans hope so. Those conspiring to turn our democracy into a plutocracy hope not.

We will see.

North Korea is incapable of providing enough food for its own people. NK is also incapable of fending off an attack from South Korea if they chose to attack so it fails that test of yours as well. Our REPUBLIC was turned into a plutocracy when the Federal Reserve Act was passed. It just takes time to subvert a Constitutional Republic. That was the intent of our Founding Fathers.

The Democratic Party is destroying this country at 100 MPH while the Republicans are doing it at 75 MPH. Not too much of a choice, but there still IS a choice. Under your rules the PEOPLE will have NO choice.

Which clearly is how you want it. So...how does your government differ from a plutocracy?

 

[flacaltenn]

In california with tier3 consumption the cost is about 30 cents per kwh.
That's way above the cost for solar . So even without tax deduction you are better off with solar than connected to the grid ( yes you can't be off grid the whole time , but in the mid term you will save money ).

Above that you have the fact that you can generate your OWN energy. How does that make you more dependent? I am franky puzzled.

Yes of course oil companies produce diesel but you will need less diesel than gasoline.
This hybrid yields 48 mpg in cities
Toyota Prius Research All Models and Prices - MSN Autos

And this amazing diesel car yields 88 MPG
HYUNDAI i20 1.1 CRDi Blue 75PS 5dr - CO2 84g/km

So yes you are still less dependent on oil companies with a diesel than with a regular gasoline car... kind of obvious.

So then you are stating a personal solar panel system is a viable alternative to conventional grid power? Really? And you want to explain how that's going to be possible with the future heading towards plug-in cars?

And you just missed the point. Diesel made by the same people your previously said you could get independence from by going diesel or a hybrid... A hybrid still uses petroleum products...

You're not advocating independence, you're advocating cutting back a bit.Not exactly the same thing is it...

And as I said before, the pipedream, idealistic fantasies aren't going to cut it and the dismissing of reality doesn't help your cause..

YOU are missing the point : a diesel car uses 3 times less fuel than a gasoline one.
If you can't do basic math... there's no point in arguing with you.

Solar cells can have batteries to provide energy overnight... and yes you need a sunny place to use them efectively.

It would take a tractor trailer full of batteries/electronics to get ONE supermarket thru the night. ASSUMING that their solar installation was providing about 2.5 times the required load during the day. There is no credible ENVIRONMENTALLY sensitive way to store solar electric..

(except to use solar for making fuel -- which stores the energy in the fuel)

So what you got in solar is a SUPPLEMENT that cant' be counted on to run a modern civilization..

 

[prepster]

There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
For the purposes of this thread I would only like to debate whether the Earth is actually warming or not.

Some will take this for granted while others might say its a myth.

What are your point of views regarding global warming?
Is it real or there is no such thing as global warming?

( I have my viewpoint but I'll wait until I can post links to voice it ).

GW is real, but our understanding of it is incomplete so long as a definitive theory of everything does not exist on the matter. In a more nuanced sense, global warming is primarily the result of a complex interplay of anthropogenic forcing and natural forcing, with anthropogenic forcing being the biggest contributor, although we cannot definitively know given that the science utilizes correlation rather than causation. At the same time, natural forcing could have more of an impact upon GW than previously thought, as indicated by recent released models, the increased understanding of the ability of the deep ocean to act as a carbon sink (which is not good either), and a more clear conceptualization of the impact of water vapor and the cloud cover it creates.

 

[gslack]

In california with tier3 consumption the cost is about 30 cents per kwh.
That's way above the cost for solar . So even without tax deduction you are better off with solar than connected to the grid ( yes you can't be off grid the whole time , but in the mid term you will save money ).

Above that you have the fact that you can generate your OWN energy. How does that make you more dependent? I am franky puzzled.

Yes of course oil companies produce diesel but you will need less diesel than gasoline.
This hybrid yields 48 mpg in cities
Toyota Prius Research All Models and Prices - MSN Autos

And this amazing diesel car yields 88 MPG
HYUNDAI i20 1.1 CRDi Blue 75PS 5dr - CO2 84g/km

So yes you are still less dependent on oil companies with a diesel than with a regular gasoline car... kind of obvious.

So then you are stating a personal solar panel system is a viable alternative to conventional grid power? Really? And you want to explain how that's going to be possible with the future heading towards plug-in cars?

And you just missed the point. Diesel made by the same people your previously said you could get independence from by going diesel or a hybrid... A hybrid still uses petroleum products...

You're not advocating independence, you're advocating cutting back a bit.Not exactly the same thing is it...

And as I said before, the pipedream, idealistic fantasies aren't going to cut it and the dismissing of reality doesn't help your cause..

YOU are missing the point : a diesel car uses 3 times less fuel than a gasoline one.
If you can't do basic math... there's no point in arguing with you.

Solar cells can have batteries to provide energy overnight... and yes you need a sunny place to use them efectively.

And diesel is made from the exact same source... Again you are advocating cutting back, and NOT independence, which was your previous claim...

LOL, and batteries can't keep a hospital, a supermarket, a police department, a fire department, or any other institution you can think of running...

What part of that being a fantasy, is confusing you?

And there we see your nature.. You ask for debate, but when you get it, you accuse me of an inability to do simple math and pout.. Look dude we got enough crybabies on this forum, try something new..

 

[gslack]

There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
For the purposes of this thread I would only like to debate whether the Earth is actually warming or not.

Some will take this for granted while others might say its a myth.

What are your point of views regarding global warming?
Is it real or there is no such thing as global warming?

( I have my viewpoint but I'll wait until I can post links to voice it ).

GW is real, but our understanding of it is incomplete so long as a definitive theory of everything does not exist on the matter. In a more nuanced sense, global warming is primarily the result of a complex interplay of anthropogenic forcing and natural forcing, with anthropogenic forcing being the biggest contributor, although we cannot definitively know given that the science utilizes correlation rather than causation. At the same time, natural forcing could have more of an impact upon GW than previously thought, as indicated by recent released models, the increased understanding of the ability of the deep ocean to act as a carbon sink (which is not good either), and a more clear conceptualization of the impact of water vapor and the cloud cover it creates.

Another "new" guy... How expected...

 

[prepster]

There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.
For the purposes of this thread I would only like to debate whether the Earth is actually warming or not.

Some will take this for granted while others might say its a myth.

What are your point of views regarding global warming?
Is it real or there is no such thing as global warming?

( I have my viewpoint but I'll wait until I can post links to voice it ).

GW is real, but our understanding of it is incomplete so long as a definitive theory of everything does not exist on the matter. In a more nuanced sense, global warming is primarily the result of a complex interplay of anthropogenic forcing and natural forcing, with anthropogenic forcing being the biggest contributor, although we cannot definitively know given that the science utilizes correlation rather than causation. At the same time, natural forcing could have more of an impact upon GW than previously thought, as indicated by recent released models, the increased understanding of the ability of the deep ocean to act as a carbon sink (which is not good either), and a more clear conceptualization of the impact of water vapor and the cloud cover it creates.

Another "new" guy... How expected...

How are you, gslack?