Your Extinction.

[dimensional]

We'd waste tens of trillions of dollars on less reliable energy.

It would probably take less than a trillion to convert the U.S. to solar. We blew over 2 trillion on the second Iraq war. And a little over 2 trillion in Afghanistan. And we got absolutely nothing out of it. Except for hordes of White hating muslim refugee scum.

 

[dimensional]

Solar would have been up and running by now. Who cares about the cost when the end of the world is coming?

Care to try and say something more sensible?

 

[Crick]

We'd waste tens of trillions of dollars on less reliable energy.

If it's energy without GHG emissions, it isn't money wasted.

It seems to be far too easy for you to forget why we're even doing this in the first place.

 

[dimensional]

I got a degree in architecture in 1976. At the time, we were told that solar would be the "next big thing".

That was 47 years ago. I won't be holding my breath,

Why? Because there isn't much money to be made from FREE! But there is a hell of a lot of money to be made from drilling for oil and selling gas. As well as plowing the tops of mountains to get at coal. And what do they do with all that money they make? They use a small portion of it to make sure that you vote for their political puppets.

 

[dimensional]

The problem is that a lot of that is based upon manipulated and cherry picked data by scientists that have admitted they are being dishonest.

Did somebody have to "cherry pick" how much you suck? How about you tell me why scientists hate money so much. No doubt they would like for things to continue where they could keep getting paid. And having their research funded. But the SCIENCE shows them that there id a BIG problem. Also, I have heard that crap about scientists admitting they they were being dishonest before. There is no truth to it. And even "if" one or two did to some degree, that in no way represents the vast majority of the science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nuclear plants couldn't save you. Nothing can. But as civilization collapses, at least you would still be able to get some power if you had solar panels.

Nuclear plants couldn't save you. Nothing can

We can't be saved in the next 27 years?

Is your imaginary 100-degree increase inevitable?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I gave you links in the form of graphs. As time passes, they rise sharply. What more would you need to know.

None of your graphs were proof of an extinction level event by 2050.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If it's energy without GHG emissions, it isn't money wasted.

It seems to be far too easy for you to forget why we're even doing this in the first place.

Money wasted on unreliable energy isn't less of a waste because
we slowed the predicted 2100 warming by a year or two.

It seems to be far too easy for you to forget why we're even doing this in the first place.

To satisfy economic and scientific bubbleheads.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why? Because there isn't much money to be made from FREE! But there is a hell of a lot of money to be made from drilling for oil and selling gas. As well as plowing the tops of mountains to get at coal. And what do they do with all that money they make? They use a small portion of it to make sure that you vote for their political puppets.

But there is a hell of a lot of money to be made from drilling for oil and selling gas.

Providing huge amounts of useful energy is profitable.

And what do they do with all that money they make?

Pay taxes, dividends and salaries.

 

[westwall]

Do you have to practice to say such stupid things? Or does it come naturally. Our industry uses shitloads of all sorts minerals. How many brown people right now are dying from scraping them out of the ground. And don't try to tell me what I know or don't know.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Flash]

Did somebody have to "cherry pick" how much you suck? How about you tell me why scientists hate money so much. No doubt they would like for things to continue where they could keep getting paid. And having their research funded. But the SCIENCE shows them that there id a BIG problem. Also, I have heard that crap about scientists admitting they they were being dishonest before. There is no truth to it. And even "if" one or two did to some degree, that in no way represents the vast majority of the science.

The Principle Scientists working the research admitted they were using manipulated and cherry picked data. We hacked their emails and exposed the fraud. In addition, NOAA. NASA and the UN Climate Commission have all been caught red handed manipulating data.

The scientific basis for the graphs you posted have little to no credibility.

Climate change is real. It has been happening to some degree or another ever since the earth was created. It has resulted in the extinction of 99% of all the plant and animal species that ever existed on earth. Humans have dealt with that in the past. Everything from having to survive an ice age to having civilizations collapse because of extended drought like with the Mayans.

As an Environmental Engineer I would have no problem in accepting AGW if it was real. I understand the effects of pollution. I had a 30 year career dealing with it. However, man made climate change is bullshit. There is absolutely no credible evidence. Just a silly correlation, some shit in shit out computer models and a lot of fraudulent and cherry picked data.

 

[Crick]

The Principle Scientists working the research admitted they were using manipulated and cherry picked data. We hacked their emails and exposed the fraud. In addition, NOAA. NASA and the UN Climate Commission have all been caught red handed manipulating data.

I'd really like to see some links to that.

As an Environmental Engineer I would have no problem in accepting AGW if it was real. I understand the effects of pollution. I had a 30 year career dealing with it. However, man made climate change is bullshit. There is absolutely no credible evidence. Just a silly correlation, some shit in shit out computer models and a lot of fraudulent and cherry picked data.

I don't know what you did and did not learn as an envirionmental engineer but I am absolutely certain that the claims in your last sentence are unsupportable bullshit. If you'd like to have a more detailed and resourced discussion of all those issue, I would be happy to oblige you.

 

[Blues Man]

If it's energy without GHG emissions, it isn't money wasted.

It seems to be far too easy for you to forget why we're even doing this in the first place.

So then next generation nuclear power plants should be included because they are the single best zero emission electricity producers that are capable of providing baseline power 27/7/365

 

[Flash]

1 part per 10,000 increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration in 63 years (1958-2021).

Fossil Fuels running out in less than 100 years.

Oh the noes we're all gunna die.

 

[Flash]

I'd really like to see some links to that.

I don't know what you did and did not learn as an envirionmental engineer but I am absolutely certain that the claims in your last sentence are unsupportable bullshit. If you'd like to have a more detailed and resourced discussion of all those issue, I would be happy to oblige you.

Crick

Are you the stupid Environmental Wacko bitch in the audience asking the questions but not wanting to hear the answer?

 

[Flash]

 

[Crick]

Crick

Are you the stupid Environmental Wacko bitch in the audience asking the questions but not wanting to hear the answer?

No. I'm the one with all the links to actual science, not fucking YouTube videos of financial analysts.

 

[Flash]

Shit in-shit out Environmental Wacko models from the so called "Climate Scientists". LOL!

Never get it right.

 

[Flash]

We have very little CO2 now compared to the history of the earth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Shit in-shit out Environmental Wacko models from the so called "Climate Scientists". LOL!

Never get it right.