The Green Paradox, We Must Destroy The World, To Save The World

[elektra]

Where are your data concerning trends in storm intensity?

I dont need data, i am a witness to nature

 

[Crick]

I dont need data, i am a witness to nature

Perfect. Absolutely perfect.

 

[elektra]

Perfect. Absolutely perfect.

A very cold june here in the northeast.

And, no violent storms. Yes little cricket, we do not need google to tell us it is nice outside.

 

[Crick]

A very cold june here in the northeast.

And, no violent storms. Yes little cricket, we do not need google to tell us it is nice outside.

You are a fucking idiot.

 

[elektra]

You are a fucking idiot.

sure, in many ways, I am, but when it comes to common sense, I am miles above so many

Global Warming caused by man-made co2, than how is the solution to manufacture more, to increase the use of heavy industry, and not by a little but to create a new industry.

The solution to global warming is sort of like telling everyone, that to commute to work they will now drive an old school bus. We are building 900' tall wind turbines, covering thousands of square miles with solar panels, processing billion of tons of raw materials into the largest things in the world. They are intermittent, unreliable, unpredictable, extremely expensive, and output a very small amount of electricity compared to coal, natural gas, or nuclear power.

yep, cricket, call me an idiot while the Democrats get filthy rich. And certainly, many Republicans.

 

[Crick]

sure, in many ways, I am, but when it comes to common sense, I am miles above so many

Sorry, but I seem to have missed that.

Global Warming caused by man-made co2, than how is the solution to manufacture more, to increase the use of heavy industry, and not by a little but to create a new industry.

Do you not see that you have made a tremendous oversimplification. An industry that reduces the amount of fossil fuels burned is beneficial. The amount of fossil fuels actually burned in the production of solar panels and wind turbines is a tiny fraction of the amount that will not be burned during those product's lifetimes.

The solution to global warming is sort of like telling everyone, that to commute to work they will now drive an old school bus.

If the choice was an old school bus or 20 cars, the bus is the proper solution.

We are building 900' tall wind turbines

So what? They occupy very little land, make lots of energy with zero fuel cost and zero GHG emissions.

covering thousands of square miles with solar panels

The total covered in the US is 965 square miles.

processing billion of tons of raw materials into the largest things in the world.

The total weight of all the solar panels installed in the US, both commercial and residential, is less than 80 million pounds. That is 4-thousandths of ONE PERCENT of ONE billion tons

They are intermittent, unreliable, unpredictable, extremely expensive, and output a very small amount of electricity compared to coal, natural gas, or nuclear power.

They are as consistent and predictable as sunshine, extremely reliable (no moving parts, no combustion) and cheaper per kilowatt than any other source,

yep, cricket, call me an idiot

You're an idiot.

while the Democrats get filthy rich. And certainly, many Republicans.

Change is change. Some people will get rich, some will get poor. You have presented zero evidence indicating that democrats are getting richer from the switch to alternative energy than is anyone else. But you have to have a boogey man, don't you.

 

[elektra]

Sorry, but I seem to have missed that.

Do you not see that you have made a tremendous oversimplification. An industry that reduces the amount of fossil fuels burned is beneficial. The amount of fossil fuels actually burned in the production of solar panels and wind turbines is a tiny fraction of the amount that will not be burned during those product's lifetimes.

It is you that have provided the oversimplification.

If the same amount of material and money is spent on natural gas, nuclear power, or clean coal, we would not be building new power plants.

With solar and wind, the manufacturing is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, forever. At that, we get intermittent weak electricity.

We can build a coal plant today, with a life of 100 years. You will never build one solar panel or wind turbine used on a commercial scale that lasts 10 years, and if they do last ten years, the power output has dropped dramatically.

 

[Crick]

It is you that have provided the oversimplification.

If the same amount of material and money is spent on natural gas, nuclear power, or clean coal, we would not be building new power plants.

Did you miss the point that we're trying to eliminate GHGs?

With solar and wind, the manufacturing is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, forever. At that, we get intermittent weak electricity.

Wrong

We can build a coal plant today, with a life of 100 years. You will never build one solar panel or wind turbine used on a commercial scale that lasts 10 years, and if they do last ten years, the power output has dropped dramatically.

Wrong

 

[elektra]

Did you miss the point that we're trying to eliminate GHGs?

How do you eliminate GHF's by creating a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, forever heavy industry?

 

[Crick]

How do you eliminate GHF's by creating a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, forever heavy industry?

Your bugaboo about "heavy industry" is beginning to get into a state of delusion. You need to take a break, get some rest and rethink your approach to life and all. You know?

 

[elektra]

How do you eliminate GHF's by creating a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, forever heavy industry?

Your bugaboo about "heavy industry" is beginning to get into a state of delusion. You need to take a break, get some rest and rethink your approach to life and all. You know?

It is a good question you wont answer, because the answer shows you are wrong about Climate Change.

You can not eliminate, or lessen, CO2 in the atmosphere, by building the world's largest heavy industry manufacturing Solar Panels and Wind Turbines 24 hours a day, every day of the year, from now to forever.

Please explain how endless manufacturing of inefficient sources of electricity does not create more co2!

You can not answer crick, the answer proves you wrong, and everyone sees it.

 

[Crick]

It is a good question you wont answer, because the answer shows you are wrong about Climate Change.

You can not eliminate, or lessen, CO2 in the atmosphere, by building the world's largest heavy industry manufacturing Solar Panels and Wind Turbines 24 hours a day, every day of the year, from now to forever.

Please explain how endless manufacturing of inefficient sources of electricity does not create more co2!

You can not answer crick, the answer proves you wrong, and everyone sees it.

Please explain why, after dozens and dozens of your posts going on and on about heavy industry, you've never posted any numbers to support your claims. You just fucking babble.