🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁

Debate on climate and warming? Not really.

Why should I bother? They denigrate themselves. And you, for being stupid enough to fall for that drivel.

I certainly trust the evidence presented from scientists of all the different nations than I do your unfounded opinions.

You only trust the evidence from scientists who support your opinion.
Knowing nothing about me, you state it well.
 
Why should I bother? They denigrate themselves. And you, for being stupid enough to fall for that drivel.

I certainly trust the evidence presented from scientists of all the different nations than I do your unfounded opinions.

You only trust the evidence from scientists who support your opinion.
Knowing nothing about me, you state it well.

I was talking to Old Rocks, his was the post I replied to.
 
Show me a nuke plant built under budget and on time, and maybe I would find some support for them. However, Nuke power is still expensive power.

I am fine with fracking, provided that no aquifers are impacted.

However, Nuke power is still expensive power.

Now you guys are concerned about cost? LOL!

If you used consistent designs and ended frivolous lawsuits against new plant construction, you could
build them much faster, much less expensively.

Can you tell me when all that cheap German wind and solar is going to bring their electricity costs down from triple ours to a more reasonable double our levels?

5 years? 10 years? Never?


If you get 75% of your electric by solar panels on your roof, I have news, it doesn't mater if the electric rates are double.

Nuclear power has always been the most subsidized. They create the most danger. We haven't had to deconstruct one yet to know those costs.

If you get 75% of your electric by solar panels on your roof, I have news, it doesn't mater if the electric rates are double.


If Germany generates "cheap wind and solar electricity" why are their rates higher?

LOL!

Nuclear power has always been the most subsidized.


Now subsidies are bad? LOL!

They create the most danger.


Really? How many killed by the US civilian nuclear power industry?
Don't sit there & claim it is cheaper.

150 incidents in nuclear power plants between 2001 & 2006. Lets look at accidents worldwide. TMI cost 2.4 billion.

How many people have been killed in the coal industry?

What was the cost of Yucca Mountain? How much will Trump spend?

Electric rates are what the electric company charges. If I have a panel on my roof, that is less electric I need from the electric company.

Don't sit there & claim it is cheaper.

View attachment 117179

What German households pay for power

Cheaper.

If I have a panel on my roof, that is less electric I need from the electric company.


Good idea. You should do that. Let me know how long it takes you to break even.
< NEWS FEED
How to Calculate Solar Panel Payback Period (ROI)
4 REPLIES


102015_paybackperiod.png


The financial benefits of going solar are now well documented. Solar panel systems actually function as investments with strong rates of return, and homeowners generating solar electricity can avoid paying increased utility rates by eliminating their electricity bills. According to a 2015 report by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, installing solar panels on your home can even increase your property values. If you’re reviewing multiple quotes, there are plenty of metrics that can help you make a decision about which solar option is best for you, but studies show most solar shoppers rely on one metric in particular: the solar panel payback period or break-even point.
Calculate Your Solar Panel Payback Period | EnergySage

There you go. And, since solar continues to come down in price, the payback period continues to decrease. And if you add an EV, and a storage system for unused power, the payback period will decrease even further.
 
Why should I bother? They denigrate themselves. And you, for being stupid enough to fall for that drivel.

I certainly trust the evidence presented from scientists of all the different nations than I do your unfounded opinions.

You only trust the evidence from scientists who support your opinion.
Knowing nothing about me, you state it well.
From you posts, I know you have little scientific education.
 
Why should I bother? They denigrate themselves. And you, for being stupid enough to fall for that drivel.

I certainly trust the evidence presented from scientists of all the different nations than I do your unfounded opinions.

You only trust the evidence from scientists who support your opinion.
Knowing nothing about me, you state it well.
From you posts, I know you have little scientific education.
You know nothing. You're just another dim troll bot that will say anything to prove a lie.
 
Why should I bother? They denigrate themselves. And you, for being stupid enough to fall for that drivel.

I certainly trust the evidence presented from scientists of all the different nations than I do your unfounded opinions.

You only trust the evidence from scientists who support your opinion.
Knowing nothing about me, you state it well.
From you posts, I know you have little scientific education.

Scientific education is not necessary to realize the falsehood of the "climate change" religion.


That one almost worked on a lot of people. I have to admit it took serious gumption to dream that one up.


"The weather changes, so give me money"

Pwahahahah!
 
Why should I bother? They denigrate themselves. And you, for being stupid enough to fall for that drivel.

I certainly trust the evidence presented from scientists of all the different nations than I do your unfounded opinions.

You only trust the evidence from scientists who support your opinion.
Knowing nothing about me, you state it well.
From you posts, I know you have little scientific education.


Old Rocks:
" From you posts, I know you have little scientific education. "

Was this meant for me? If so, what a coincidence cuz I was thinking the same thing about you.
 
The undeniable fact and the only fact you have, that you refuse to admit to, is that you have no provable data from over 150 years ago. Only educated guesses that can never be proven.

Which is precisely what both sides on this issue have, nothing more than educated guesses based on data that may or may not be completely accurate. And in the case of the alarmists, computer models and so-called experts that have ALL been wrong over the past 30 years. There's no provable data from 150 years ago and no provable data for 150 years from now either.
OK, you love to repeat the ignorance and lies of the rightwingnutjobs. The absorption spectra of the GHGs is proof enough that increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will increase the amount of heat the atmosphere retains. We know the residence time of the various GHGs in the atmosphere, so we know that the heat retained in the atmosphere is going to increase for the next 150 years if we continue as we are.
 
Why should I bother? They denigrate themselves. And you, for being stupid enough to fall for that drivel.

I certainly trust the evidence presented from scientists of all the different nations than I do your unfounded opinions.

You only trust the evidence from scientists who support your opinion.
Knowing nothing about me, you state it well.
From you posts, I know you have little scientific education.


Old Rocks:
" From you posts, I know you have little scientific education. "

Was this meant for me? If so, what a coincidence cuz I was thinking the same thing about you.
If the shoe fits.
 
Why should I bother? They denigrate themselves. And you, for being stupid enough to fall for that drivel.

I certainly trust the evidence presented from scientists of all the different nations than I do your unfounded opinions.

You only trust the evidence from scientists who support your opinion.
Knowing nothing about me, you state it well.
From you posts, I know you have little scientific education.

Scientific education is not necessary to realize the falsehood of the "climate change" religion.


That one almost worked on a lot of people. I have to admit it took serious gumption to dream that one up.


"The weather changes, so give me money"

Pwahahahah!
LOL Ah well, we know now what you opinion on any scientific subject is worth. Gotta love it when the dummies think they have the bona fides to judge science when they are totally ignorant of science.
 
The undeniable fact and the only fact you have, that you refuse to admit to, is that you have no provable data from over 150 years ago. Only educated guesses that can never be proven.

Which is precisely what both sides on this issue have, nothing more than educated guesses based on data that may or may not be completely accurate. And in the case of the alarmists, computer models and so-called experts that have ALL been wrong over the past 30 years. There's no provable data from 150 years ago and no provable data for 150 years from now either.
OK, you love to repeat the ignorance and lies of the rightwingnutjobs. The absorption spectra of the GHGs is proof enough that increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will increase the amount of heat the atmosphere retains. We know the residence time of the various GHGs in the atmosphere, so we know that the heat retained in the atmosphere is going to increase for the next 150 years if we continue as we are.
I think you are a triggilypuff. You cannot see into the past, and now you claim to predict the future. Here's my forecast, "Widely scattered light turning to dark in the evening.
 
Why should I bother? They denigrate themselves. And you, for being stupid enough to fall for that drivel.

I certainly trust the evidence presented from scientists of all the different nations than I do your unfounded opinions.

You only trust the evidence from scientists who support your opinion.
Knowing nothing about me, you state it well.
From you posts, I know you have little scientific education.

Scientific education is not necessary to realize the falsehood of the "climate change" religion.


That one almost worked on a lot of people. I have to admit it took serious gumption to dream that one up.


"The weather changes, so give me money"

Pwahahahah!
LOL Ah well, we know now what you opinion on any scientific subject is worth. Gotta love it when the dummies think they have the bona fides to judge science when they are totally ignorant of science.
Always attacking those who disagree with you is a sure sine you lie.
 
Those in denial are indeed the village idiots in this discussion. The science is clear, most scientists believe mankind contributes significantly to global warming, and that idiots say 'no' should be pointed out and ridiculed.
No proof exists. Only fake computer generated data from tree rings and cave drawings.

Tree ring data is inaccurate. As is ice core data.
Link, asshole?

About Tree Rings | Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research

Ice Core Data: Truths and Misconceptions

Ice Core Dating | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

CO2: Ice Cores vs. Plant Stomata

World War II Planes Found in Greenland In Ice 260 Feet Deep

Template1

WWII airplanes are now beneath thousands of annual ice layers - EvoWiki

I know you'll try to denigrate some of the ice core sources.

To which I say "bite me" :D
Why should I bother? They denigrate themselves. And you, for being stupid enough to fall for that drivel.

I certainly trust the evidence presented from scientists of all the different nations than I do your unfounded opinions.
Indeed.
 
Why should I bother? They denigrate themselves. And you, for being stupid enough to fall for that drivel.

I certainly trust the evidence presented from scientists of all the different nations than I do your unfounded opinions.

You only trust the evidence from scientists who support your opinion.
Like the 3% that support yours? :)
 
Why should I bother? They denigrate themselves. And you, for being stupid enough to fall for that drivel.

I certainly trust the evidence presented from scientists of all the different nations than I do your unfounded opinions.

You only trust the evidence from scientists who support your opinion.
Like the 3% that support yours? :)

That 3% number is obviously based on the old and thoroughly debunked BS about 97% scientists agreeing with the theory that GW is rising at a rate that will cause catastrophic consequences and that GW is primarily caused by human activity. If you still want to run with that, fine but it's cockamammy BS. Actually, this issue has been so politicized that I don't believe anybody after all I've read about it. I do not doubt that GW/CC is a reality, but I distrust those who say that the rise in global temps is enough to mean that dire calamities are imminent. Nor am I certain that the GW/CC is entirely due to anthropogenic causes; has mankind polluting the air and water? Sure, and it's a problem that ought to be addressed in a reasonable and cost-effective manner. But not the hair-on-fire alarmism that many on the Left ascribe to the problem.
 
Why should I bother? They denigrate themselves. And you, for being stupid enough to fall for that drivel.

I certainly trust the evidence presented from scientists of all the different nations than I do your unfounded opinions.

You only trust the evidence from scientists who support your opinion.
Like the 3% that support yours? :)

That 3% number is obviously based on the old and thoroughly debunked BS about 97% scientists agreeing with the theory that GW is rising at a rate that will cause catastrophic consequences and that GW is primarily caused by human activity. If you still want to run with that, fine but it's cockamammy BS. Actually, this issue has been so politicized that I don't believe anybody after all I've read about it. I do not doubt that GW/CC is a reality, but I distrust those who say that the rise in global temps is enough to mean that dire calamities are imminent. Nor am I certain that the GW/CC is entirely due to anthropogenic causes; has mankind polluting the air and water? Sure, and it's a problem that ought to be addressed in a reasonable and cost-effective manner. But not the hair-on-fire alarmism that many on the Left ascribe to the problem.
I care what the scientists think, not you.
 
Why should I bother? They denigrate themselves. And you, for being stupid enough to fall for that drivel.

I certainly trust the evidence presented from scientists of all the different nations than I do your unfounded opinions.

You only trust the evidence from scientists who support your opinion.
Like the 3% that support yours? :)

That 3% number is obviously based on the old and thoroughly debunked BS about 97% scientists agreeing with the theory that GW is rising at a rate that will cause catastrophic consequences and that GW is primarily caused by human activity. If you still want to run with that, fine but it's cockamammy BS. Actually, this issue has been so politicized that I don't believe anybody after all I've read about it. I do not doubt that GW/CC is a reality, but I distrust those who say that the rise in global temps is enough to mean that dire calamities are imminent. Nor am I certain that the GW/CC is entirely due to anthropogenic causes; has mankind polluting the air and water? Sure, and it's a problem that ought to be addressed in a reasonable and cost-effective manner. But not the hair-on-fire alarmism that many on the Left ascribe to the problem.
I care what the scientists think, not you.

What a coincidence.
 
Why should I bother? They denigrate themselves. And you, for being stupid enough to fall for that drivel.

I certainly trust the evidence presented from scientists of all the different nations than I do your unfounded opinions.

You only trust the evidence from scientists who support your opinion.
Like the 3% that support yours? :)

That 3% number is obviously based on the old and thoroughly debunked BS about 97% scientists agreeing with the theory that GW is rising at a rate that will cause catastrophic consequences and that GW is primarily caused by human activity. If you still want to run with that, fine but it's cockamammy BS. Actually, this issue has been so politicized that I don't believe anybody after all I've read about it. I do not doubt that GW/CC is a reality, but I distrust those who say that the rise in global temps is enough to mean that dire calamities are imminent. Nor am I certain that the GW/CC is entirely due to anthropogenic causes; has mankind polluting the air and water? Sure, and it's a problem that ought to be addressed in a reasonable and cost-effective manner. But not the hair-on-fire alarmism that many on the Left ascribe to the problem.
I care what the scientists think, not you.

What a coincidence.
 
Thank you for recognizing the nonsense of your position, Task.
 
Anyone who tells you that climate is changing all the time, have them refer to the image below. Follow the curve.

earth_temperature_timeline.png

Jake, please tell the class how we had accurate temperature reading of the "excess heat" stored in the deep ocean back in 1600, and 10,000 BCE, for example
I see you are too stupid to understand how we know what we know about what the planet was like thousands & millions years ago.

Clearly, please educate me. How did you get those deep ocean heat readings back in 60BCE?
From proxies in the sediment cores retrieved from the ocean bottom, you semi-literate ass.

You have deep ocean water temperature accurate to a degree from proxies?

Can you show us the "Science" behind how the temperature was arrived at for save the Atlantic Ocean circa 30BCE?

And please tell us how your information is more reliable than phrenology
 

Forum List

Back
Top