The Failure Of Climate Change Denial

[Liminal]

So you keep saying, evidently to no effect.

how can it, you have no character.

That must be why you need to personalize all your alleged arguments.

I merely call it as I see it.

No junior, you still don't get it. You personalize because you lack compelling or relevant arguments to begin with. So you think you can distract from the complete absence of any substance in any of your alleged arguments, it isn't working. You'll have to come up with something better.

no, I state the fact and then you flop around the thread the rest of the day trying to figure something out that distracts away from the facts. Sorry pal the facts are the facts.

Well it certainly has been a pleasure having this little window into your stream of consciousness.

 

[jc456]

Today's post of the day:

repeat after me"Fu-ku-shi-ma". Slowly now.

How many people were killed by Fukushima?

Remains to be seen. Ask again in ten years.
Costs and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster PSR

The answer is:
Total people killed by radiation, zero.
Total injured, zero.
Total private property damaged by radiation, zero.
Expected long term effects on people, zero.

Now you're just lying. Why do you bother?

and yet............................you can't provide any rebuttal. what fool you are.

 

[Liminal]

Today's post of the day:

How many people were killed by Fukushima?

Remains to be seen. Ask again in ten years.
Costs and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster PSR

The answer is:
Total people killed by radiation, zero.
Total injured, zero.
Total private property damaged by radiation, zero.
Expected long term effects on people, zero.

Now you're just lying. Why do you bother?

and yet............................you can't provide any rebuttal. what fool you are.

Self proclaimed victories and fantasy awards are probably about as good as it gets for you.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Today's post of the day:

Remains to be seen. Ask again in ten years.
Costs and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster PSR

The answer is:
Total people killed by radiation, zero.
Total injured, zero.
Total private property damaged by radiation, zero.
Expected long term effects on people, zero.

Now you're just lying. Why do you bother?

and yet............................you can't provide any rebuttal. what fool you are.

Self proclaimed victories and fantasy awards are probably about as good as it gets for you.

And the speculation continues.

 

[Dot Com]

 

[bripat9643]

How will the world be better if we spend $76 trillion on a hoax?

The one notion that liberal nutburgers can't separate themselves from is the idea that their schemes don't have a cost.

 

[RKMBrown]

How will the world be better if we spend $76 trillion on a hoax?

The one notion that liberal nutburgers can't separate themselves from is the idea that their schemes don't have a cost.

libs are morons... no getting around it.

 

[Dot Com]

huh?

whom are you addressing?

 

[PredFan]

How will the world be better if we spend $76 trillion on a hoax?

The one notion that liberal nutburgers can't separate themselves from is the idea that their schemes don't have a cost.

Bam! Destroyed!

Bravo!

 

[PredFan]

From the Department of Redundancy Department:

"Liberal Nutburgers"

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your problem is obvious..

 

[Crick]

How will the world be better if we spend $76 trillion on a hoax?

Were you unable to read the cartoon Paddie? Let's see:

o ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
o PRESERVE RAIN FORESTS
o SUSTAINABILITY
o GREEN JOBS
o RENEWABLES
o CLEAN WATER, AIR
o HEALTHY CHILDREN
o ETC, ETC.

And then there's the point that spending $76 billion preventing global warming that would cost us $100 TRILLION to deal with is a pretty fucking good bargain.

 

[Old Rocks]

Except it will not cost to prevent warming, in fact, given that the price of wind is about half that of dirty coal now, and solar is very close to the price at present. By the end of 2016, solar will be less than the cost of dirty coal. So the cost of preventing the warming will be a plus, not a minus. So you can add that amount to the amount saved by preventing the warming. By those figures, 200 trillion in the bank by doing the intelligent thing.

 

[jc456]

Except it will not cost to prevent warming, in fact, given that the price of wind is about half that of dirty coal now, and solar is very close to the price at present. By the end of 2016, solar will be less than the cost of dirty coal. So the cost of preventing the warming will be a plus, not a minus. So you can add that amount to the amount saved by preventing the warming. By those figures, 200 trillion in the bank by doing the intelligent thing.

Wrong

 

[Crick]

JC, even if AGW were prevented by using gold as a fuel for fusion reactors in downtown Tokyo, London, Paris, Stockholm and Manhattan, it would cost orders of magnitude less than doing nothing.

 

[jc456]

JC, even if AGW were prevented by using gold as a fuel for fusion reactors in downtown Tokyo, London, Paris, Stockholm and Manhattan, it would cost orders of magnitude less than doing nothing.

show me the figures.

 

[IanC]

the problem with economic forecasts is all the assumptions that need to be made. change the assumptions, change the forecast.

let's look at the cost of renewables compared to fossil fuels. to guarantee available power fuel power stations must be kept idling. this decreases their efficiency. are the comparisons weighted to adding this cost to renewables, or are they added to fossil fuels? I think we all know the answer to that. the forced inefficiency is added to the cost of fuel power plants while the disability of renewables to provide power on demand is ignored. free power from wind and solar is not free. unless you are willing to go without power when the sunn isnt shining or the wind isnt blowing.

 

[Billy_Bob]

How will the world be better if we spend $76 trillion on a hoax?

Were you unable to read the cartoon Paddie? Let's see:

o ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
o PRESERVE RAIN FORESTS
o SUSTAINABILITY
o GREEN JOBS
o RENEWABLES
o CLEAN WATER, AIR
o HEALTHY CHILDREN
o ETC, ETC.

And then there's the point that spending $76 billion preventing global warming that would cost us $100 TRILLION to deal with is a pretty fucking good bargain.

Its only a bargain if its paid for with OTHER PEOPLES MONEY... You left wit morons are all the same. Pay for this stupidity from your own dam pocket!!

 

[Crick]

I'm glad to see there's someone out there who think's a profit ratio of well over a million: to 1 is a bad deal. Less competition.

What a maroon.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm glad to see there's someone out there who think's a profit ratio of well over a million: to 1 is a bad deal. Less competition.

What a maroon.

Who's making a profit of a million to one? What the fuck are you talking about?