Why is climate science political?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

I don't think it is a question of money. In some cases, I suspect some countries will save money in the long run.

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD


How does somebody like this navigate in the real world?? I read some of these posts and there is such a level of disconnect as not to be believed. Pure fantasy stuff.


s0n..........you gotta take a course in how to read tea leaves. Your shit is not at all grounded. Green energy is moving at a snails pace for one reason: its not cost effective by any measure. Any measure. All over the world, any of this "real science" isnt mattering because countries have budgets and people are sick and tired of getting the shit taxed out of them to support this 18th century technology designed to "save the world".


As Thomas Sowell brilliantly identifies in this vid.........far left guys are never concerned with answering two key questions no matter what you re debating:

1) As compared to what?

and

2) At what cost?


Thats why they compromise a small % of us..........most people have the inate ability to recognize that having to answer those two questions is critical.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88]The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative - YouTube[/ame]



Go to 3:40



How do I know with 100% certainty that Im correct and dopes like Saigon are wrong? If Saigon was grounded, Cap and Trade would have been a chip shot field goal in America. Its dead.......as dead as a doornail. Trust me.........people dont give a rats ass about "glacial retreat".

Thanks for the Sowell, he's great.
Cuts right through the liberal idiocy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is typical posting for Walleyes. And when you refute his silly posts with information from real sources like the USGS or NOAA, he immediatly claims they are lying and all in on a conspriracy to alter data. Here is a extensive report from the USGS.

.

That kind of posting really does make me angry.

The number of times of this site I have heard people talk about cherry-picking data, and here we see a poster select, from the 130,000 glaciers in the world, 2 which he wants to talk about.

Wall believes we can learn more about glaciers by using a test sample of 0.0000153% - despite the fact that I had previously linked a study which covered some 670 glaciers.

That he ignored.

Priceless.

Typical liberal. Horrible math.
Try again?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Problem is, malthusian ecofascists don't want ANY of these three safe, proven and effective power sources made. One floods too much land, the other might meltdown, and the last can never be 'clean enough'.

So we're left with jokes, science projects and the continuously failed ideas of kooks and weirdos to be the backbone of society.

I don't agree with that at all.

I support nuclear myself, because other forms of energy (hydro, wind, solar, tidal) simply aren't viable here in Finland, and we get -25C in winter.

But it has to be said - the case against nuclear is fairly strong. Disposal of the waste is an issue which has never been solved, and may not be in our lifetime. I totally respect those who oppose it.

Hydro likewise is a sensible option in many countries, but it is environmentally devastating. Again, I understand the case against it.

Any group insisting on any form of energy can seem a bit fascist, and there are environmental fascists, but it is easy to assume from them that green energy is not viable, whereas in many cases it is safe, clean and practical. It just isn't always effective, depending on local conditions.

But it has to be said - the case against nuclear is fairly strong. Disposal of the waste is an issue which has never been solved, and may not be in our lifetime.

What is so difficult? Reprocess the spent fuel and recover the unused U-235, U-238 and plutonium. Bury the remainder. It's a much smaller volume left than never reprocessing and burying the entire amount.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I like how it took years to refurbish the building, but the payback happened in 12 months...

I heard it paid for itself before they even started the work.

Or maybe it paid for itself before they even thought up the idea?

That's the great thing about green energy. No matter how unrealistic the claim, they can always top it.

 

[skookerasbil]

Yeah Todd......nobody nails it on the head like Sowell. Hes stupid brilliant. There is nobody like him.......takes complicated themes and makes into an easy connect the dots game. The way he completely defines liberal intentions vs the results is nothing less than laughable.

If you never read "Vision of the Annointed", you realize how far these people have their heads up their asses when it comes to public policy. Thankfully, in about 5 months, its all going to get mothballed for at least two generations!!!

 

[Big Fitz]

Bob & Fitz -

No, green energy isn't cost-effective. It is hamstrung, by fuck-tards.

Then please look at the model of tidal energy provided earlier and explaim how it is not cost effective.

Again - one single project can provide enough electricity for 4 million people.

It is entirely invisible.

It requires an initial investment of less than a hydro dam or nuclear power station.

Most of the parts required can be produce locally.

What are the parts made of and how well will they sustain in Salt Water?

backyard steel worked SO well for the Chinese and their Cultural revolution, didn't it?

 

[RollingThunder]

Your whole existence is irrelevant. That point aside what does your website have to say about the holocene thermal maximum when the temps were much higher than they are today? Hmmmm? What was the state of the glaciers on Kilimanjaro then?
Nice attempt to cover up your compatriots idiotic response. You fail as usual.

Oh walleyed, why do you cling so tightly to your debunked denier cult myths? Oh right, you're retarded.

I just spanked you yesterday on another thread over your idiotic holocene thermal maximum myth.

Get a grip, little retard, your lies and nonsense won't fly here.

Oh wow, walleyedretard, your denier cult myths are just too funny for words. You must be an absolute idiot to believe in those anti-science fantasies and lies.

Holocene climatic optimum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P.. This event has also been known by many other names, including: Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal. This warm period was followed by a gradual decline until about two millennia ago.

Global effects

The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia).[1] The northwest of Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the south.[2] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less than 1 °C; the tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef ~5350 years ago was 1 °C warmer and enriched in 18O by 0.5 per mil relative to modern seawater.[3] In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns). While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average.[4]

"What was the state of the glaciers on Kilimanjaro then?" - the state of the glaciers during the htm was that they were probably doing fine since they are in the tropics and the "tropics were colder than average".

There were glaciers in the tropics between 8000 and 5000 years ago?

Cue the circus music.

Why? So everyone can laugh at what a stupid clown you are? OK.....LOLOLOLOL

Yes retard, there were "glaciers in the tropics" back then. There are glaciers in the tropics now. If you weren't braindead, you'd know that we were talking about the shrinkage of the glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro, which is only about 165 miles from the equator in east central Africa. It doesn't get much more "tropical" than that.

 

[Saigon]

Bob & Fitz -

No, green energy isn't cost-effective. It is hamstrung, by fuck-tards.

Then please look at the model of tidal energy provided earlier and explaim how it is not cost effective.

Again - one single project can provide enough electricity for 4 million people.

It is entirely invisible.

It requires an initial investment of less than a hydro dam or nuclear power station.

Most of the parts required can be produce locally.

What are the parts made of and how well will they sustain in Salt Water?

There is more information in the link, but they are made largely of fibreglass, hence salt water shouldn't be a problem.

They'll require some maintenance, and they are facing some problems with fish being killed in the turbines, but these seem to be largely teething problems.

TODD -

Please do not spam the thread. Either address the topic or leave it for others.

 

[Saigon]

What is so difficult? Reprocess the spent fuel and recover the unused U-235, U-238 and plutonium. Bury the remainder. It's a much smaller volume left than never reprocessing and burying the entire amount.

And of course you haven't given any thought to why this might not be considered the best idea ever in Japan, California, Italy or Turkey?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is so difficult? Reprocess the spent fuel and recover the unused U-235, U-238 and plutonium. Bury the remainder. It's a much smaller volume left than never reprocessing and burying the entire amount.

And of course you haven't given any thought to why this might not be considered the best idea ever in Japan, California, Italy or Turkey?

Haven't given thought as to why vastly reducing the amount of highly radioactive waste that is currently stored on site at dozens of reactors is better than the status quo?

You continue to display your ignorance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bob & Fitz -



Then please look at the model of tidal energy provided earlier and explaim how it is not cost effective.

Again - one single project can provide enough electricity for 4 million people.

It is entirely invisible.

It requires an initial investment of less than a hydro dam or nuclear power station.

Most of the parts required can be produce locally.

What are the parts made of and how well will they sustain in Salt Water?

There is more information in the link, but they are made largely of fibreglass, hence salt water shouldn't be a problem.

They'll require some maintenance, and they are facing some problems with fish being killed in the turbines, but these seem to be largely teething problems.

TODD -

Please do not spam the thread. Either address the topic or leave it for others.

Sorry, Saggy, if you think my pointing out the ignorance you and the other clowns have shown on this thread is spam. That just confirms my point.

 

[Saigon]

Sorry, Saggy, if you think my pointing out the ignorance you and the other clowns have shown on this thread is spam. That just confirms my point.

Posting pictures of breakfast cereal packets IS spam, Todd.

It is not debate, it does not point out anything...except perhaps that you can not discuss this topic sensibly.

 

[westwall]

Desertification is not a recent phenomenon. The Sahara was not always a desert. It became one before Moses was born.

Was that also caused by driving on freeways?

The Sahara means, the 'deserts,' plural. It is partly former seabed, part former forest.

You are so stupid, over so many posts, don't reach for the funny, you aren't Eddie Griffin.

And how many MILLIONS of years ago was the Sahara seabed?

 

[westwall]

Sorry, Saggy, if you think my pointing out the ignorance you and the other clowns have shown on this thread is spam. That just confirms my point.

Posting pictures of breakfast cereal packets IS spam, Todd.

It is not debate, it does not point out anything...except perhaps that you can not discuss this topic sensibly.

You get what you give. You are spamming us with your incessant claims that are ridiculous on their face. Solyndra's loss of 500 million saved us money how? And show your math.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

I posted examples of how both institutions and countries can both save money by using better, cheaprer technologies.

So far you have not responded to either.

 

[Saigon]

What is so difficult? Reprocess the spent fuel and recover the unused U-235, U-238 and plutonium. Bury the remainder. It's a much smaller volume left than never reprocessing and burying the entire amount.

And of course you haven't given any thought to why this might not be considered the best idea ever in Japan, California, Italy or Turkey?

Haven't given thought as to why vastly reducing the amount of highly radioactive waste that is currently stored on site at dozens of reactors is better than the status quo?

You continue to display your ignorance.

Todd -

Please answer the question.

 

[RollingThunder]

TODD -

Please do not spam the thread. Either address the topic or leave it for others.

Sorry, Saggy, if you think my pointing out the ignorance you and the other clowns have shown on this thread is spam. That just confirms my point.

Actually, toadsteretard, all you ever point out is your own ignorance, confusion and rank stupidity. All of your posts amount to worthless spam because you don't actually know squat about climate science or science in general. You're pretty much just another clueless retard who's been bamboozled by rightwingnut fossil fuel industry propaganda, misinformation and lies and is now severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect. You make this obvious with every one of your ignorant idiotic posts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

TODD -

Please do not spam the thread. Either address the topic or leave it for others.

Sorry, Saggy, if you think my pointing out the ignorance you and the other clowns have shown on this thread is spam. That just confirms my point.

Actually, toadsteretard, all you ever point out is your own ignorance, confusion and rank stupidity. All of your posts amount to worthless spam because you don't actually know squat about climate science or science in general. You're pretty much just another clueless retard who's been bamboozled by rightwingnut fossil fuel industry propaganda, misinformation and lies and is now severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect. You make this obvious with every one of your ignorant idiotic posts.

How many trillions do you want us to waste on CO2 reduction?
How much lower will the temperature be in 2080 if we follow your advice?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And of course you haven't given any thought to why this might not be considered the best idea ever in Japan, California, Italy or Turkey?

Haven't given thought as to why vastly reducing the amount of highly radioactive waste that is currently stored on site at dozens of reactors is better than the status quo?

You continue to display your ignorance.

Todd -

Please answer the question.

Already did.

 

[Saigon]

No, Todd, you didn't, you know you didn't, and we both know why you didn't.

Storing radioactive material in places like California, Turkey, Italy and Japan is not viable because of the earthquake risk. And neither are nuclear plants viable in places with a tsunami risk.

They are not viable for scientific reasons, and it is not viable because no population will accept it.

Presenting nuclear as a simple, catch-all solution is just stupid.

I am pro-nucelar, but I wince when I see people pretend that we should forget what just happened in Japan because it will never happen here/again etc etc etc.