How’s That Wind Power Working Out for You?

[jc456]

TROLL

So no temperature readings from 100 years ago? So fking funny

 

[abu afak]

TROLL

And when are you going to get 10% enough brains to Ignore him?
You can't STFU.
Don't humor them you F***** ldiot. Kills ho not 100 B-B pellets.
Again, you are a tactical MORON.

 

[elektra]

again, elektra didn't ask for the 'exact' temperature. You assumed they did.

But, technically they need to prove they do know exact temperatures in week, a month a year. They need to know exact temps so that they can extrapulate the natural deviations from what the claim are human deviations.

Of course we are born of this earth so whatever we do is natural despite what the climate nuts think.

Even in recent history, the temperature predictions have not materialized. So now the predictions are made so far into the future that nobody will be alive today will be around to show them they lied.

 

[elektra]

Politicians do not dictate the price of electricity. Prices are negotiated between government, electrical distribution utilities and, oftentimes these days, third party industrial concerns with power generating assets.

Uh, news flash, the government is politicians.

College educated lawyers, college political scientists, in office, then in charge of the bureaucracy are politicians.

And now of course, we have politicians leaving office taking high ranking jobs in the private sector.

The idea that politicians are not negotiated by politicians, is simply naive.

Crick states it himself, the goverment is negotiating prices. The govrernment is not a secretary or worker bee, it is politicians.

 

[Pete7469]

1. Hook some turbines up to the faces of the wretched hags on "The View".

2. Say "Trump" outloud.

3. There's enough hot air in 40 minutes in all the pissing and moaning to power a small town all day as a result.


.

 

[elektra]

Is this supposed to convince us that what's coming down the pike here are irrefutable, objective facts? Cause... you know... I'm a little dubious.

Indisputable, as I referenced, politicians dictating price, not the market.

 

[jc456]

And when are you going to get 10% enough brains to Ignore him?
You can't STFU.
Don't humor them you F***** ldiot. Kills ho not 100 B-B pellets.
Again, you are a tactical MORON.

says crick to himself. wow.

 

[jc456]

But, technically they need to prove they do know exact temperatures in week, a month a year. They need to know exact temps so that they can extrapulate the natural deviations from what the claim are human deviations.

Of course we are born of this earth so whatever we do is natural despite what the climate nuts think.

Even in recent history, the temperature predictions have not materialized. So now the predictions are made so far into the future that nobody will be alive today will be around to show them they lied.

sure, but again, you never mentioned to produce the exact temperature. Folks with common sense like us know to give a number of something you believe it was. Whether or not it's exact doesn't matter, a number matters to benchmark from.

 

[elektra]

And when are you going to get 10% enough brains to Ignore him?
You can't STFU.
Don't humor them you F***** ldiot. Kills ho not 100 B-B pellets.
Again, you are a tactical MORON.

Says the moron

 

[jc456]

Uh, news flash, the government is politicians.

shhhh, he thinks government is magical. Not a human being.

 

[Crick]

And when are you going to get 10% enough brains to Ignore him?
You can't STFU.
Don't humor them you F***** ldiot. Kills ho not 100 B-B pellets.
Again, you are a tactical MORON.

Nice to hear from you but I think we have different approaches to this problem. Obviously, neither of us are likely to change the minds of anyone we're arguing with. We should be aiming at the invisible multitudes who are reading these posts but not participating in the discussion. In that regard, I think your antagonism and hostility - aimed apparently at everyone - may not be the most effective tactical choice.

 

[elektra]

Nice to hear from you but I think we have different approaches to this problem. Obviously, neither of us are likely to change the minds of anyone we're arguing with. We should be aiming at the invisible multitudes who are reading these posts but not participating in the discussion. In that regard, I think your antagonism and hostility - aimed apparently at everyone - may not be the most effective tactical choice.

You will never change the minds of anyone because the facts do not support you ideology.

Simple stuff, like not being able to tell us how much was spent

 

[Crick]

You will never change the minds of anyone because the facts do not support you ideology.

Simple stuff, like not being able to tell us how much was spent

Can you explain what bearing your question has on the science of AGW?

 

[elektra]

Can you explain what bearing your question has on the science of AGW?

The science? If there is AGW why is there solution Wind Turbines and Solar Panels?

Science? That states CO2 is a pollutant?

Science, were all the predictions failed.

Are you talking about the opinion by people who "studied" papers, that all the scientist but one agree.

Science, you dont know one bit about science let alone, you cant google link anything other than propaganda

Science, where the solution is to build big failed 1000 ft tall wind turbines using all the natural resources until there are none.

Sustainable, your solution is to mine and refine silica using heavy industry burning coal, from yesterday until forever.

The renewables heavy industry use of fossil fuel never ends. Renewables will require fossil fuel forever


How do my questions reflect on agw, says the elephant in the room.

You are destroying, not us against wind turbines and solar.

Any replies in disagreement is nothing less than stupidity.

Tell us how your forever plan of building renewables saves the world

 

[elektra]

Can you explain what bearing your question has on the science of AGW?

The simple answer for you, is, you have no facts

 

[Crick]

The simple answer for you, is, you have no facts

So you are unable to explain what you question has to do with the science of AGW. That would be, quite obviously, because it has NONE. As for facts: My side of this argument has AR6 and all that preceded it. My side of this argument has thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed published scientific studies. What facts do YOU have?

 

[elektra]

So you are unable to explain what you question has to do with the science of AGW. That would be, quite obviously, because it has NONE. As for facts: My side of this argument has AR6 and all that preceded it. My side of this argument has thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed published scientific studies. What facts do YOU have?

Which question? Maybe include the question so i dont have to figure out what you are talking about.

But what relevancy of any question poised to you, that you cant or dont answer have. Those questions are worded to show your lack of knowledge on this subject.

Now go back and quote what you think was specific ti AGW, I am betting you stretched the truth on that to the point tjat you broke it.

 

[Crick]

Which question? Maybe include the question so i dont have to figure out what you are talking about.

HAHAHAHAaahaahaahaa... That would be the question you asked me a dozen times and screamed another dozen times about my refusal to answer. Perhaps this will jog your memory:

Elektra said:
More crap having nothing to do with my two simple questions.

I asked how much has been spent and how much you will spend.

You wont answer because you are simply ignorant, or stupid, or both.

How much.​

But what relevancy of any question poised to you, that you cant or dont answer have. Those questions are worded to show your lack of knowledge on this subject.

Now go back and quote what you think was specific ti AGW, I am betting you stretched the truth on that to the point tjat you broke it.

My point all along was that the question was idiotic and completely irrelevant to the science of AGW, which is why I didn't bother to answer it. As I stated, it was precisely analogous to a four-year old asking his parents "How high is the sky".

 

[Woodznutz]

Where is abu afk, you know he/she is creeping around, reading the posts.

How is wind power working out?

One out of wind turbine in new england is always broke.

Recently are electric bills doubled to pay for renewable energy.

Abu Afk tells us this is the cheapest power ever created yet it costs us more than any other source of power.

That neans one or rwo things. We dont need to subsidize renewables. They are dirt cheap.

And we need a federal investigation into why the renewables are ripping off the consumers, us. Why do democrats give our money to renewables when according to abu afk renewables make more profit than all ither firms of energy, cause they are the cheapest.

Why are we being ripped off

I read somewhere that all the energy produced by wind and solar is about equal to the energy needed to produce and maintain more wind and solar infrastructure. So it's really an exercise in futility.

 

[Crick]

The science? If there is AGW why is there solution Wind Turbines and Solar Panels?

Did you mean "their solution"? If so, the answer is that wind turbines and solar panels replace fossil fuel power plants and thus reduce our GHG emissions. Surely you knew that. A fourth grader could have answered that question.

Science? That states CO2 is a pollutant?

The science behind the theory of anthropogenic global warming does not depend on semantics. Apparently, almost your entire argument against it does.

Science, were all the predictions failed.

This statement is a lie. They have not failed.

Are you talking about the opinion by people who "studied" papers, that all the scientist but one agree.

Not at the moment. But the consensus is quite real and completely relevant.

Science, you dont know one bit about science let alone, you cant google link anything other than propaganda

The largest portion of my posted and linked information comes from "The Physical Science Basis". Here is a brief review of the authors.
From Authors

234 experts from 64 countries served as authors for the WGI contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. The chapters and summary materials were developed by 31 Coordinating Lead Authors and 167 Lead Authors, supported by numerous Contributing Authors. Another 36 Review Editors ensured that all substantive comments during the review stages were given appropriate consideration by the Authors. Of the selected experts, 41% come from developing countries and countries with economies in transition, and 59% are from developed countries. In this report, 63% of the authors were new to the IPCC process, 28% are women and 72% men.

If you think such a group is incapable of achieving YOUR understanding of science and of producing only propaganda, you need a stiff reality check.

Science, where the solution is to build big failed 1000 ft tall wind turbines using all the natural resources until there are none.

Wind turbine technology has not failed. Wind turbine technology does not consume excessive resources. And, as I've stated repeatedly now, since you place no value whatsoever on the ability to generate electricity without producing GHG emissions, you and I will never come to any agreement on this matter and since it is extremely likely that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the warming observed since 1850 or so, your choice to ignore that input renders your opinions worthless.

Sustainable, your solution is to mine and refine silica using heavy industry burning coal, from yesterday until forever.

The renewables heavy industry use of fossil fuel never ends. Renewables will require fossil fuel forever

As non-emitting technologies replace fossil fuel sources, that use steadily declines. When the last fossil fuel plant closes, that use will come to zero. A fifth grader might have been required to answer that point.

How do my questions reflect on agw, says the elephant in the room.

I'm afraid it is not at all clear to what "elephant in the room" you refer.

You are destroying, not us against wind turbines and solar.

That sentence is indecipherable.

Any replies in disagreement is nothing less than stupidity.

Since you do not say to whose replies you refer, this sentence is also indecipherable.

Tell us how your forever plan of building renewables saves the world

I have no idea what you mean by "forever plan" but replacing fossil fuel powered plants with non-emitting technologies (wind, solar PV, hydroelectricity, tidal, wave, OTEC, geothermal, etc) will reduce the level of GHGs in the atmosphere which will reduce the greenhouse gas warming that threatens to do catastrophic harm to the human race and much life on this planet. And I think we're back to a fourth-grader needed to provide an answer to this question.