Pay no attention to man made climate change folks

[otto105]

"A UN panel said Friday it was more certain than ever that humans were causing global warming and predicted temperatures would rise by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century."

Gee thanks IPCC -- with that range from NOTHING_Burger to CALAMITY, that's NOT "settled science".... That's the point I was making to RealDave above... And that's the problem..

Because ANY actual result in that range is "likely" and THAT is NOT sufficient guidance to send our economies back to the Stone Age.. EVEN IF --- we could....

Furthermore, what's NOT STATED in that article is EQUALLY important.. What WAS the "co2 emission assumptions" that were used for THAT number.. And does the same modeling "back project" accurately?


There is no adequate consensus.. Because a consensus is on ONE question at a time. And GW/CC has about 100 key questions.. So there is no "general" consensus on ALL of it...

GW/CC have no scientific consensus?


What planet are you on?

What question is that consensus on? Because a scientific consensus requires a VERY LIMITED AND SPECIFIC question.. That's how this sciency works....

State the SPECIFIC question this supposed "consensus" is on.. And realize that you need to ask a HUNDRED questions to get enough consensus on climate change to even ponder future public policies....

Like "what's the temperature anomaly GONNA BE in 2100" ?????????

I just showed that there is NO CONSENSUS on that one worth turning everything inside out....

You need to ask a 100 questions to believe that GW/CC is not happening?

And just what is "turning everything inside out" supposed to mean? Is that like the day some ape discovered fire and an ape you asked 100 questions before acknowledging its reality?

You didn't answer my question of what YOU are claiming has consensus.. And YES, there are over a hundred CRITICAL questions that must be asked and have consensus before your minions of morons go around haranguing everyone about "what's to be done about it"....

Knowing what fraction of the MINUTE warming that has occurred is due to anthropogenic Co2 emissions does NOT GUIDE the solution without KNOWING what the projected temperature in 2100 is gonna be.. Similarly, you need to know how much confidence is in the modeling that is the root of the projections, what assumptions drive the models and how accurate the estimates of critical climate variables are actually known..


Did you understand REAL CONSENSUS on the very limited question of whether the PUBLIC was understanding what climate science ACTUALLY says? By a LARGE MAJORITY, climate scientists agree that the public knowledge of what the science is warped and distorted...

You're one of those haranguers... Too lazy to THINK like a scientist, and too politically rabid to have a conversation with...

"Haranguers"?

I don't have to "think like a scientist" to come to a realization that GW/CC is real and that it is man made. I can with 100% certainty accept the determination of actual scientists and scientific organizations that GW/CC is real and poses a threat to our way of life.

You have nothing but doubt sowing and NO scientific organization to back opinion that cow farts are natural, so don't worry. Why is it that NO scientific organization will back your opinion?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I don't have to "think like a scientist"

So you admit your a dupe and will remain a dupe... Bravo! Admitting you have a problem is the first step...

 

[otto105]

I don't have to "think like a scientist"

So you admit your a dupe and will remain a dupe... Bravo! Admitting you have a problem is the first step...

Deflect....say do you have a scientific organization willing to destroy it's repetition to support your denial position or not.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I don't have to "think like a scientist"

So you admit your a dupe and will remain a dupe... Bravo! Admitting you have a problem is the first step...

Deflect....say do you have a scientific organization willing to destroy it's repetition to support your denial position or not.

"do you have a scientific organization willing to destroy it's repetition to support you...."

LOL

deflection: Appeal to authority. Logical Fallacy argument.

Why do you take what the political arm of any organization, which do not ask their members if they agree with it, as gospel? They spew political crap and their members call them on it .. yet you believe...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course most on the right who are more interested in making money would love to deregulate nuclear energy and trust companies to do it the right way but oh snap they are in it for the money

You don't think wind and solar isn't NOW driven by greedy people who want those subsidies? There IS a "big Wind and Big Solar" industry... You just think they are cute and cuddly...

LOTS of folks bilking money out of subsidized wind and solar.. BIG BUCKS.....

Oil and coal is subsidized like wind and solar as most energy industries so big deal I just pointed out how right wing like deregulation.

Oil and coal is subsidized like wind and solar

You're lying.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Impressive.. You've done some work.. "man" recently is about 5% of that entire "carbon cycle" Nature outweighs it by 20 to 1... And so far, OF that 5%, nature absorbs in excess sink capability.. Furthermore, what's CHARGED to "man" is highly debatable.. Since we get charged with livestock emissions that simply replaced the endless herds of buffalo and other big grazers that got displaced by domestic farming..

A doubling of CO2 in the atmos causes about a 1DegC change in surface temperature.. THis is the RAW warming power of CO2 as gas in the atmos.. WITHOUT the more hysterical GW adjunct theories about "runaway feedbacks, accelerations (not in evidence) and trigger temps from which the planet just trashes itself to death...

The 415 ppm today IS NOT EVEN a doubling since we started the Industrial Revolution at about 280 ppm.. Will be 2050 or so til we get there... That's 1degC for a 280ppm increase... Then to get the NEXT 1degC, we'd have to load the atmos with TWICE AS MUCH CO2 to get the same effect.. Because CO2 warming power is quite saturated and does not LINEARLY increase temp... So we'd need 560 additional ppm to get to 2 deg..

THIS is the basic science without the exaggeration, speculation, phony modeling and hype. And this is what I believe is true.. By 2050 the temp anomaly due to anthro CO2 will be about 1degC... Anything above or below that is natural variance... And it will probably be WAY past 2100 until the anthropomorphic part of climate change accounts for 2DegC...

While the hyped SUPERPOWERS of CO2 that SOME climate scientists believe in are creating models that predict 2100 temp anomalies anywhere between 4 and 8 DegC.. That's not likely IMO....

...and that my friends is a great summary of why the Environmental Wackos have to fabricate data and why none of their predictions ever come true. Because AGW is a nothing burger.

It's just shy of a nothing burger.. There IS an effect.. The problem is that GW is not just ONE question.. It's many questions and theories.. Some are better than others.. And it's the CATASTROPHIC theories that have lit the flames of social/political confrontation.. Most of those are NOT "settled science"... But there is an effect assuming the CO2 doubling by (say) 2050 is "somewhat" attributable to man..

Catastrophic results in areas of the globe are predicted & possible.

The worst predictions have the premise that we do nothing to curb emissions & made prior to any action being done.

For example, if we do what Trump & you assfuck deniers want, bad shit will certainly happen.

If we opt to act to reduce emission, these catastrophic results can be lessened.

The settled science is that increasing CO2 levels will cause warming & if we do not act, results could be catastrophic.

But hey, sit on your fast ass & send your children & grandchildsren to a more difficult life because you're a fucking idiot.

Why are you assfuck warmers against nuclear power?

The 15 nuclear reactors of the same design as Fukushima along the New Madrid fault line comes to mind.

Or the shut down of Three Mile Island taking 60 years.

Or the leaking reactors in Illinois upwind from Chicago.

Chernobyl

Fukushima

Expensive

A threat to millions of Americans

Yeah but the world is gonna end in 12 years.
What's the risk of New Madrid compared to that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Renewable energy is the source of light that will keep it lit.

Other than hydro and geothermal which both have drastic effects on the environment, that list of ALTERNATIVES, HAS NO alternatives right now to fossil fuels.. Wind and solar are flaky unreliable supplements. NOT alternatives..

You COULD solve the CO2 emission issue completely with a build-out of nuclear power.. In fact the "Father of Global Warming Panic himself -- James Hansen fielded a petition of leading enviros and climate scientists stating ----

Is nuclear power the answer on climate change?


Hansen departs from environmental orthodoxy, however, in arguing that there is no way to cut greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently by relying solely on green alternatives like solar and wind power.

“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole” Hansen writes in an essay, “is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”

There ya go... Solution is right in front of you.. But the scary thing is -- leftists are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warming... And THAT --- should tell you why NONE OF THIS "alternative horseshit" is getting traction or serious attention....

Have fun waiting up for the "Tooth Fairy".....

leftists are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warming... And THAT --- should tell you why NONE OF THIS "alternative horseshit" is getting traction or serious attention....

^
This.

More afraid of Climate Change & consider other options. Nuclear power is not the only solution.

Nuclear power is not the only solution.

No, but it's the only large scale, 24 hour power source if you want to reduce CO2.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 271198

So, some of my posts on this thread were deleted by a moderator.... "Your post in the thread Pay no attention to man made climate change folks was deleted. Reason: feuds over off topic chemtrail shit and all personal content posts"

And then this beauty " Reason: Dont do chem trails in GW threads..."

My reply? Then ban me from this forum...it's not like I give a flying fuck. I don't live here like some of you do. The truth isn't pretty but it's truth nonetheless. This forum is short on those that talk about the ugly facts in lieu of pretty little lies where partisanship rules. I don't NEED this forum at all.

Take your Chem Trail bullshit & stasrt your own thread.

Simple Dave, when geo-engineering plays a factor in weather anomalies that is used to claim "Climate Change"? It should be called out as such....don't like the facts? Don't blame me....I simply proved my point, dipshit.

There are deniers & then there are crazy assed chem trail people.

This is "normal", dumb ass???????

View attachment 271196 View attachment 271197

Yes, water vapor is normal.

 

[Flash]

Renewable energy is the source of light that will keep it lit.

Other than hydro and geothermal which both have drastic effects on the environment, that list of ALTERNATIVES, HAS NO alternatives right now to fossil fuels.. Wind and solar are flaky unreliable supplements. NOT alternatives..

You COULD solve the CO2 emission issue completely with a build-out of nuclear power.. In fact the "Father of Global Warming Panic himself -- James Hansen fielded a petition of leading enviros and climate scientists stating ----

Is nuclear power the answer on climate change?


Hansen departs from environmental orthodoxy, however, in arguing that there is no way to cut greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently by relying solely on green alternatives like solar and wind power.

“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole” Hansen writes in an essay, “is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”

There ya go... Solution is right in front of you.. But the scary thing is -- leftists are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warming... And THAT --- should tell you why NONE OF THIS "alternative horseshit" is getting traction or serious attention....

Have fun waiting up for the "Tooth Fairy".....

leftists are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warming... And THAT --- should tell you why NONE OF THIS "alternative horseshit" is getting traction or serious attention....

^
This.

More afraid of Climate Change & consider other options. Nuclear power is not the only solution.

Nuclear power is not the only solution.

No, but it's the only large scale, 24 hour power source if you want to reduce CO2.

You have to remember that to these idiot Moon Bats almost ten billion people can get all their energy needs from solar and wind. they have been told that and they believe it. You can't reason with stupidity like that.

 

[otto105]

I have a news flash: You are a fucking idiot.

The planet naturally emits CO2 & naturally absorbs CO2.

Along comes the Industrial Revolution & now we have emissions my man. These emissions push the total emitted past the amount the Earth can absorb. This raised the CO2 concentration & this heightened the greenhouse effect & this leads to warming.

Get t yet? Dumbass.

Impressive.. You've done some work.. "man" recently is about 5% of that entire "carbon cycle" Nature outweighs it by 20 to 1... And so far, OF that 5%, nature absorbs in excess sink capability.. Furthermore, what's CHARGED to "man" is highly debatable.. Since we get charged with livestock emissions that simply replaced the endless herds of buffalo and other big grazers that got displaced by domestic farming..

A doubling of CO2 in the atmos causes about a 1DegC change in surface temperature.. THis is the RAW warming power of CO2 as gas in the atmos.. WITHOUT the more hysterical GW adjunct theories about "runaway feedbacks, accelerations (not in evidence) and trigger temps from which the planet just trashes itself to death...

The 415 ppm today IS NOT EVEN a doubling since we started the Industrial Revolution at about 280 ppm.. Will be 2050 or so til we get there... That's 1degC for a 280ppm increase... Then to get the NEXT 1degC, we'd have to load the atmos with TWICE AS MUCH CO2 to get the same effect.. Because CO2 warming power is quite saturated and does not LINEARLY increase temp... So we'd need 560 additional ppm to get to 2 deg..

THIS is the basic science without the exaggeration, speculation, phony modeling and hype. And this is what I believe is true.. By 2050 the temp anomaly due to anthro CO2 will be about 1degC... Anything above or below that is natural variance... And it will probably be WAY past 2100 until the anthropomorphic part of climate change accounts for 2DegC...

While the hyped SUPERPOWERS of CO2 that SOME climate scientists believe in are creating models that predict 2100 temp anomalies anywhere between 4 and 8 DegC.. That's not likely IMO....

...and that my friends is a great summary of why the Environmental Wackos have to fabricate data and why none of their predictions ever come true. Because AGW is a nothing burger.

It's just shy of a nothing burger.. There IS an effect.. The problem is that GW is not just ONE question.. It's many questions and theories.. Some are better than others.. And it's the CATASTROPHIC theories that have lit the flames of social/political confrontation.. Most of those are NOT "settled science"... But there is an effect assuming the CO2 doubling by (say) 2050 is "somewhat" attributable to man..

Catastrophic results in areas of the globe are predicted & possible.

The worst predictions have the premise that we do nothing to curb emissions & made prior to any action being done.

For example, if we do what Trump & you assfuck deniers want, bad shit will certainly happen.

If we opt to act to reduce emission, these catastrophic results can be lessened.

The settled science is that increasing CO2 levels will cause warming & if we do not act, results could be catastrophic.

But hey, sit on your fast ass & send your children & grandchildsren to a more difficult life because you're a fucking idiot.

Why are you assfuck warmers against nuclear power?

Homophobia aside, waste disposal issues.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Impressive.. You've done some work.. "man" recently is about 5% of that entire "carbon cycle" Nature outweighs it by 20 to 1... And so far, OF that 5%, nature absorbs in excess sink capability.. Furthermore, what's CHARGED to "man" is highly debatable.. Since we get charged with livestock emissions that simply replaced the endless herds of buffalo and other big grazers that got displaced by domestic farming..

A doubling of CO2 in the atmos causes about a 1DegC change in surface temperature.. THis is the RAW warming power of CO2 as gas in the atmos.. WITHOUT the more hysterical GW adjunct theories about "runaway feedbacks, accelerations (not in evidence) and trigger temps from which the planet just trashes itself to death...

The 415 ppm today IS NOT EVEN a doubling since we started the Industrial Revolution at about 280 ppm.. Will be 2050 or so til we get there... That's 1degC for a 280ppm increase... Then to get the NEXT 1degC, we'd have to load the atmos with TWICE AS MUCH CO2 to get the same effect.. Because CO2 warming power is quite saturated and does not LINEARLY increase temp... So we'd need 560 additional ppm to get to 2 deg..

THIS is the basic science without the exaggeration, speculation, phony modeling and hype. And this is what I believe is true.. By 2050 the temp anomaly due to anthro CO2 will be about 1degC... Anything above or below that is natural variance... And it will probably be WAY past 2100 until the anthropomorphic part of climate change accounts for 2DegC...

While the hyped SUPERPOWERS of CO2 that SOME climate scientists believe in are creating models that predict 2100 temp anomalies anywhere between 4 and 8 DegC.. That's not likely IMO....

...and that my friends is a great summary of why the Environmental Wackos have to fabricate data and why none of their predictions ever come true. Because AGW is a nothing burger.

It's just shy of a nothing burger.. There IS an effect.. The problem is that GW is not just ONE question.. It's many questions and theories.. Some are better than others.. And it's the CATASTROPHIC theories that have lit the flames of social/political confrontation.. Most of those are NOT "settled science"... But there is an effect assuming the CO2 doubling by (say) 2050 is "somewhat" attributable to man..

Catastrophic results in areas of the globe are predicted & possible.

The worst predictions have the premise that we do nothing to curb emissions & made prior to any action being done.

For example, if we do what Trump & you assfuck deniers want, bad shit will certainly happen.

If we opt to act to reduce emission, these catastrophic results can be lessened.

The settled science is that increasing CO2 levels will cause warming & if we do not act, results could be catastrophic.

But hey, sit on your fast ass & send your children & grandchildsren to a more difficult life because you're a fucking idiot.

Why are you assfuck warmers against nuclear power?

Homophobia aside, waste disposal issues.

Our reactors have managed to store all their spent fuel on site for decades.
Not very much volume....why is it an issue?

 

[Flash]

Impressive.. You've done some work.. "man" recently is about 5% of that entire "carbon cycle" Nature outweighs it by 20 to 1... And so far, OF that 5%, nature absorbs in excess sink capability.. Furthermore, what's CHARGED to "man" is highly debatable.. Since we get charged with livestock emissions that simply replaced the endless herds of buffalo and other big grazers that got displaced by domestic farming..

A doubling of CO2 in the atmos causes about a 1DegC change in surface temperature.. THis is the RAW warming power of CO2 as gas in the atmos.. WITHOUT the more hysterical GW adjunct theories about "runaway feedbacks, accelerations (not in evidence) and trigger temps from which the planet just trashes itself to death...

The 415 ppm today IS NOT EVEN a doubling since we started the Industrial Revolution at about 280 ppm.. Will be 2050 or so til we get there... That's 1degC for a 280ppm increase... Then to get the NEXT 1degC, we'd have to load the atmos with TWICE AS MUCH CO2 to get the same effect.. Because CO2 warming power is quite saturated and does not LINEARLY increase temp... So we'd need 560 additional ppm to get to 2 deg..

THIS is the basic science without the exaggeration, speculation, phony modeling and hype. And this is what I believe is true.. By 2050 the temp anomaly due to anthro CO2 will be about 1degC... Anything above or below that is natural variance... And it will probably be WAY past 2100 until the anthropomorphic part of climate change accounts for 2DegC...

While the hyped SUPERPOWERS of CO2 that SOME climate scientists believe in are creating models that predict 2100 temp anomalies anywhere between 4 and 8 DegC.. That's not likely IMO....

...and that my friends is a great summary of why the Environmental Wackos have to fabricate data and why none of their predictions ever come true. Because AGW is a nothing burger.

It's just shy of a nothing burger.. There IS an effect.. The problem is that GW is not just ONE question.. It's many questions and theories.. Some are better than others.. And it's the CATASTROPHIC theories that have lit the flames of social/political confrontation.. Most of those are NOT "settled science"... But there is an effect assuming the CO2 doubling by (say) 2050 is "somewhat" attributable to man..

Catastrophic results in areas of the globe are predicted & possible.

The worst predictions have the premise that we do nothing to curb emissions & made prior to any action being done.

For example, if we do what Trump & you assfuck deniers want, bad shit will certainly happen.

If we opt to act to reduce emission, these catastrophic results can be lessened.

The settled science is that increasing CO2 levels will cause warming & if we do not act, results could be catastrophic.

But hey, sit on your fast ass & send your children & grandchildsren to a more difficult life because you're a fucking idiot.

Why are you assfuck warmers against nuclear power?

Homophobia aside, waste disposal issues.

There is a great place to store the waste at Yucca Mountain. I have been there. However, the stupid Environmental Wackos are fighting it tooth and nail because they know not having a disposal site can help to curtail nuclear power production. Really stupid, isn't it?

 

[Kilroy2]

They came up with a plan if it didn't work out then they will change it. They are smarter that what you give them credit for.

I work and went to school with many of these people and they live and die by their modeling. The base hypothesis hasn't changed in 50 years and they refuse to change it, even with massive predictive failures.

They do what the grant looks for rather than science... Follow the money!

What are your conclusions and have they been verified

Fine are you saying the predictive models are in error then what are your conclusions from what work you have done.

 

[otto105]

...and that my friends is a great summary of why the Environmental Wackos have to fabricate data and why none of their predictions ever come true. Because AGW is a nothing burger.

It's just shy of a nothing burger.. There IS an effect.. The problem is that GW is not just ONE question.. It's many questions and theories.. Some are better than others.. And it's the CATASTROPHIC theories that have lit the flames of social/political confrontation.. Most of those are NOT "settled science"... But there is an effect assuming the CO2 doubling by (say) 2050 is "somewhat" attributable to man..

Catastrophic results in areas of the globe are predicted & possible.

The worst predictions have the premise that we do nothing to curb emissions & made prior to any action being done.

For example, if we do what Trump & you assfuck deniers want, bad shit will certainly happen.

If we opt to act to reduce emission, these catastrophic results can be lessened.

The settled science is that increasing CO2 levels will cause warming & if we do not act, results could be catastrophic.

But hey, sit on your fast ass & send your children & grandchildsren to a more difficult life because you're a fucking idiot.

Why are you assfuck warmers against nuclear power?

Homophobia aside, waste disposal issues.

Our reactors have managed to store all their spent fuel on site for decades.
Not very much volume....why is it an issue?

What plant are you referencing?

 

[RealDave]

...and that my friends is a great summary of why the Environmental Wackos have to fabricate data and why none of their predictions ever come true. Because AGW is a nothing burger.

It's just shy of a nothing burger.. There IS an effect.. The problem is that GW is not just ONE question.. It's many questions and theories.. Some are better than others.. And it's the CATASTROPHIC theories that have lit the flames of social/political confrontation.. Most of those are NOT "settled science"... But there is an effect assuming the CO2 doubling by (say) 2050 is "somewhat" attributable to man..

Catastrophic results in areas of the globe are predicted & possible.

The worst predictions have the premise that we do nothing to curb emissions & made prior to any action being done.

For example, if we do what Trump & you assfuck deniers want, bad shit will certainly happen.

If we opt to act to reduce emission, these catastrophic results can be lessened.

The settled science is that increasing CO2 levels will cause warming & if we do not act, results could be catastrophic.

But hey, sit on your fast ass & send your children & grandchildsren to a more difficult life because you're a fucking idiot.

Why are you assfuck warmers against nuclear power?

Homophobia aside, waste disposal issues.

There is a great place to store the waste at Yucca Mountain. I have been there. However, the stupid Environmental Wackos are fighting it tooth and nail because they know not having a disposal site can help to curtail nuclear power production. Really stupid, isn't it?

What is really stupid to to put this dangerous materials on a train & take it cross country.through hundreds of communities.

 

[otto105]

It's just shy of a nothing burger.. There IS an effect.. The problem is that GW is not just ONE question.. It's many questions and theories.. Some are better than others.. And it's the CATASTROPHIC theories that have lit the flames of social/political confrontation.. Most of those are NOT "settled science"... But there is an effect assuming the CO2 doubling by (say) 2050 is "somewhat" attributable to man..

Catastrophic results in areas of the globe are predicted & possible.

The worst predictions have the premise that we do nothing to curb emissions & made prior to any action being done.

For example, if we do what Trump & you assfuck deniers want, bad shit will certainly happen.

If we opt to act to reduce emission, these catastrophic results can be lessened.

The settled science is that increasing CO2 levels will cause warming & if we do not act, results could be catastrophic.

But hey, sit on your fast ass & send your children & grandchildsren to a more difficult life because you're a fucking idiot.

Why are you assfuck warmers against nuclear power?

Homophobia aside, waste disposal issues.

There is a great place to store the waste at Yucca Mountain. I have been there. However, the stupid Environmental Wackos are fighting it tooth and nail because they know not having a disposal site can help to curtail nuclear power production. Really stupid, isn't it?

What is really stupid to to put this dangerous materials on a train & take it cross country.through hundreds of communities.

Power generation from aging nuclear plants is costing its customers more money than renewable energy sources.


Just see the bill in Ohio of reference.

 

[RealDave]

Renewable energy is the source of light that will keep it lit.

Other than hydro and geothermal which both have drastic effects on the environment, that list of ALTERNATIVES, HAS NO alternatives right now to fossil fuels.. Wind and solar are flaky unreliable supplements. NOT alternatives..

You COULD solve the CO2 emission issue completely with a build-out of nuclear power.. In fact the "Father of Global Warming Panic himself -- James Hansen fielded a petition of leading enviros and climate scientists stating ----

Is nuclear power the answer on climate change?


Hansen departs from environmental orthodoxy, however, in arguing that there is no way to cut greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently by relying solely on green alternatives like solar and wind power.

“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole” Hansen writes in an essay, “is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”

There ya go... Solution is right in front of you.. But the scary thing is -- leftists are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warming... And THAT --- should tell you why NONE OF THIS "alternative horseshit" is getting traction or serious attention....

Have fun waiting up for the "Tooth Fairy".....

leftists are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warming... And THAT --- should tell you why NONE OF THIS "alternative horseshit" is getting traction or serious attention....

^
This.

More afraid of Climate Change & consider other options. Nuclear power is not the only solution.

Nuclear power is not the only solution.

No, but it's the only large scale, 24 hour power source if you want to reduce CO2.

You have to remember that to these idiot Moon Bats almost ten billion people can get all their energy needs from solar and wind. they have been told that and they believe it. You can't reason with stupidity like that.

The sun rains down enough energy during the noontime hour to power the planet for a year.

But hey, fuck that. Lets instead build all these plants where an accident or earthquake could contaminate the area for decades & kill thousands.

 

[RealDave]

...and that my friends is a great summary of why the Environmental Wackos have to fabricate data and why none of their predictions ever come true. Because AGW is a nothing burger.

It's just shy of a nothing burger.. There IS an effect.. The problem is that GW is not just ONE question.. It's many questions and theories.. Some are better than others.. And it's the CATASTROPHIC theories that have lit the flames of social/political confrontation.. Most of those are NOT "settled science"... But there is an effect assuming the CO2 doubling by (say) 2050 is "somewhat" attributable to man..

Catastrophic results in areas of the globe are predicted & possible.

The worst predictions have the premise that we do nothing to curb emissions & made prior to any action being done.

For example, if we do what Trump & you assfuck deniers want, bad shit will certainly happen.

If we opt to act to reduce emission, these catastrophic results can be lessened.

The settled science is that increasing CO2 levels will cause warming & if we do not act, results could be catastrophic.

But hey, sit on your fast ass & send your children & grandchildsren to a more difficult life because you're a fucking idiot.

Why are you assfuck warmers against nuclear power?

The 15 nuclear reactors of the same design as Fukushima along the New Madrid fault line comes to mind.

Or the shut down of Three Mile Island taking 60 years.

Or the leaking reactors in Illinois upwind from Chicago.

Chernobyl

Fukushima

Expensive

A threat to millions of Americans

Yeah but the world is gonna end in 12 years.
What's the risk of New Madrid compared to that?

Misquoting is the mainstay of the dishonest fucks of Trumpland

 

[RealDave]

Of course most on the right who are more interested in making money would love to deregulate nuclear energy and trust companies to do it the right way but oh snap they are in it for the money

You don't think wind and solar isn't NOW driven by greedy people who want those subsidies? There IS a "big Wind and Big Solar" industry... You just think they are cute and cuddly...

LOTS of folks bilking money out of subsidized wind and solar.. BIG BUCKS.....

Oil and coal is subsidized like wind and solar as most energy industries so big deal I just pointed out how right wing like deregulation.

Oil and coal is subsidized like wind and solar

You're lying.

So you claim there are no oil & gas subsidies like the ones Republicans fought to save a few years back.

 

[Kilroy2]

Renewable energy is the source of light that will keep it lit.

Other than hydro and geothermal which both have drastic effects on the environment, that list of ALTERNATIVES, HAS NO alternatives right now to fossil fuels.. Wind and solar are flaky unreliable supplements. NOT alternatives..

You COULD solve the CO2 emission issue completely with a build-out of nuclear power.. In fact the "GodFather of Global Warming Panic himself -- James Hansen fielded a petition of leading enviros and climate scientists stating ----

Is nuclear power the answer on climate change?


Hansen departs from environmental orthodoxy, however, in arguing that there is no way to cut greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently by relying solely on green alternatives like solar and wind power.

“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole” Hansen writes in an essay, “is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”

There ya go... Solution is right in front of you.. But the scary thing is -- leftists are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warming... And THAT --- should tell you why NONE OF THIS "alternative horseshit" is getting traction or serious attention....

Have fun waiting up for the "Tooth Fairy".....

What is flaky about wind and sun,there plenty of it and as technology becomes better over time as most things do then flaky is a term that you use

Saying that you can solve the CO2 problem with nuclear power well you can solve it by limited the cause of the CO2 problem

The problem with nuclear is the waste, also security. and natural disasters

Of course most on the right who are more interested in making money would love to deregulate nuclear energy and trust companies to do it the right way but oh snap they are in it for the money

Who has said that there should be no regulations on nuclear energy? So desperate you have to lie. Pitiful!

Good try but all I was suggesting that repubs and the man in charge like deregulation

President Trump is committed to a deregulatory agenda

In fact nuclear energy has gone thru some deregulation to a degree all I am suggesting with Trump and repubs in charge he may shoot for more

Nuclear power plants that have reached there recommended life span are now being considered for extension. Plants that were once thought to be uneconomical and subject to early closure are now viewed as valuable assets

They are looking for 20 year extensions. There is a new environment that is looking for more leeway with regulations.

anyway you got me off tract.

So learn to read and do research