Hmmmmm..........................................

[daveman]

You are embarrassing yourself.

He has no need to be embarrassed.

You and your kind who believe we must spend trillions of dollars of other people's money to "save the planet" from plant food should be embarrassed -- but you lack the self-awareness to be.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

He has no need to be embarrassed.

You and your kind who believe we must spend trillions of dollars of other people's money to "save the planet" from plant food should be embarrassed -- but you lack the self-awareness to be.

I welcome the debate, but all they do is fling pooh and appeal to authorities who also have no science to support their claims.

Am I supposed to feel bad and surrender?

I don't think so

 

[daveman]

I welcome the debate, but all they do is fling pooh and appeal to authorities who also have no science to support their claims.

Am I supposed to feel bad and surrender?

I don't think so

They do. They're little more than emotional toddlers who need a nap but throw a tantrum when they're told to take one.

 

[Crick]

They do. They're little more than emotional toddlers who need a nap but throw a tantrum when they're told to take one.

Thank goodness I have very close to every single bit of the world's science on this topic on my side of the argument.

 

[daveman]

Thank goodness I have very close to every single bit of the world's science on this topic on my side of the argument.

Yes, your High Priests have spoken, and you dare not question them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Thank goodness I have very close to every single bit of the world's science on this topic on my side of the argument.

You have paid Climate shills with absolutely zero science on your side.

The one and only time you post a CO2 experiment it totally vaporized your failed theory

 

[skookerasbil]

As you well know, I am on the side of mainstream science. That's why I am worried about my children and angry that you aren't.

The only thing that matters is..... who's winning?!!

Mainstream science has yet to make their case....fAcT.

How do we know for certain?
Well we know because western energy policy-makers don't give one fuck about the mainstream science. Which means the mainstream science is not mattering....d0y.

Taking bows based upon slogans is ghey.

From 2010 to 2022, solar/wind have gone from 2% of US grid electricity to a whopping 6%.... WOW

@www.whosnotwinning.com


eia.gov for the sobering realities btw

 

[skookerasbil]

What a truly dumb fuck lie. Tell me, if we cannot do that, how can we possibly afford to replace the present generation facilities and transportation equipment? We are going to replace the present fossil fuel generating facilities with renewables. We will replace virtually all transportation with electrically driven vehicles. The replacement of generation facilities has already started. 83% of the new generation last year was solar and wind. Storage facilities are replacing peaker plants, and saving customers a lot of money. VPP's will soon be a vast help to utilities. People like you stand around endlessly saying what we can't do while people that count are busy doing it.

A laughable statement. Only Oz dwellers believe such things.

When I came into this forum in 2009, wind/solar provided the US with 2% of grid electricity. Now? A whopping 6%...12 years later

Only progressives are bamboozled by growth rate statistics. They are never compared in the bigger picture of the overall energy mix....which is DOMINATED by fossil fuels and will for decades

You're not a serious person dude. You spend waaaaaay too much time in the woods in the middle of Scratchmyassville USA in the Pacific northwest. Hermits are not serious people. Just sayin'....

Btw....the sobering reality for interested parties can be found at eia.gov

 

[skookerasbil]

Lol...Poland learning that going green is ghey

This is hysterical...but not for the folks freezing to death.

"Collect Branches For Fuel" - Poles Told To Burn Wood To Keep Warm Amid 'Putinflation' | ZeroHedge

 

[Crick]

Yes, your High Priests have spoken, and you dare not question them.

I could question them all I want but they are all working well over my head (and, of course, yours) so my questions wouldn't be of much value. Fortunately THEY all question each other all the time. It's what scientists do.

 

[daveman]

I could question them all I want but they are all working well over my head (and, of course, yours) so my questions wouldn't be of much value. Fortunately THEY all question each other all the time. It's what scientists do.

Is that what they do when they prevent papers questioning the cult dogma from being published?

 

[Crick]

Is that what they do when they prevent papers questioning the cult dogma from being published?

It's what they do when they prevent bad science from being published. Those reviews are at the very least shared among other reviewers. If you think they could get away with the sort of bullshit of which you're accusing them, you're not doing a lot of critical thinking.

First, mainstream science isn't a fucking cult and the majority holdings - the consensi of mainstream scientists - are not dogma. But if you can provide an example of a paper that should have been published but was blocked because it questioned the consensus, I will be very surprised. But, hey, surprise me.

 

[daveman]

It's what they do when they prevent bad science from being published. Those reviews are at the very least shared among other reviewers. If you think they could get away with the sort of bullshit of which you're accusing them, you're not doing a lot of critical thinking.

First, mainstream science isn't a fucking cult and the majority holdings - the consensi of mainstream scientists - are not dogma. But if you can provide an example of a paper that should have been published but was blocked because it questioned the consensus, I will be very surprised. But, hey, surprise me.

No, because you would just dismiss it as bad science that was rightfully hidden by your cult's High Priests. I have no reason to waste my time.

 

[Crick]

No, because you would just dismiss it as bad science that was rightfully hidden by your cult's High Priests. I have no reason to waste my time.

It is blatantly obvious that you simply refuse to risk your irrational contentions failing to verify. But carry on. At least this way, you're the only one fooled.

 

[daveman]

It is blatantly obvious that you simply refuse to risk your irrational contentions failing to verify. But carry on. At least this way, you're the only one fooled.

This ain't my first rodeo. You have no interest in considering other views. You've made that quite plain.

 

[skookerasbil]

Another dud thread...d0y

Something I noticed today though....was THIS

Germany turns to coal for electricity amid gas shortage concerns

Bah Bah Booey

 

[mamooth]

Yes, your High Priests have spoken, and you dare not question them.

Just like the round-earth high priests have spoken, and only brainwashed sheep believe them.

Dave, being into his cult as deeply as flat-earthers are into their cult, has been reduced to using flat-earther logic. Sadly for him, his cult-inspired delusions have no affect on reality.

Normal people go where the data leads. Deniers go the opposite way, entirely because their political cult has ordered them to. If left wing politics vanished completely, climate science wouldn't change a bit. If right-wing politics vanished completely, denialism would instantly vanish along with it.

I do understand why the deniers here are so cranky. If all the facts, data and science said I was a deluded cult pissguzzler, and the whole world was laughing at my stupidity, I'd probably be as cranky as they are.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, still no alternative explanation to the OP showing how 120PPM of CO2 will AT MOST generate. 0024F additional heat.

 

[mamooth]

So, still no alternative explanation to the OP showing how 120PPM of CO2 will AT MOST generate. 0024F additional heat.

I gave an explanation. You used idiot logic to make that up, because you're really freakin' stupid. Are you ever going to refute that, or will you just keep running?

Again, 1.0C increase, in the real world, from 120ppm. And no, your "but have you considered every variable" whimpering was not an argument. You're the one putting forth a new theory, so you're required back it up. "But have you haven't ruled some unnamable magic that I won't describe, thus the magic must exist!" is not an argument.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I gave an explanation. You used idiot logic to make that up, because you're really freakin' stupid.

Are you ever going to refute that, or will you just keep running?

You did no such thing Cat Lady!

You invented a 1C increase based upon the fictional accounting and the one and only time your Doomsday Cult posts an experiment controlling for CO2 it establishes that 120PPM of CO2 CANNOT generate anywhere near 1C so this "excess heat" must be due to other variable

That's how science works