Why is climate science political?

[westwall]

the main problem with renewable energy other than hydro is the fact that it is not steady. solar only works in the daytime (even if some charlatans were selling power at the bonus rate even at night), and wind power only when the wind blows (as long as its not too strong).

unfortunately we need power when the consumer demands power. so even though wind and solar can add to the grid we still need a steady source to accomodate the load. part of the cost of W&S should be the necessity of having a back-up supply on hand. or we could just regress to a lifestyle where you only use electricity when it is available. that would play havoc with production though. ask South Africa how they like constant rolling blackouts and unreliable electricity.

Unfortunately, idiot skeptics of pragmatism translate, to idiot skeptics of AGW, which translate to blockers of all notice of acceleration of both warming and acidification, which translate to blockers of carbonic acidification data, who then prevent all biomass media and re-greening media. Oil and nukes persist, during this dilemma.

So even though you didn't read most of this thread, you are over here posting, without the slightest clue, as to biomass availability or necessity. You disdain the hockey 'stick,' which describes acceleration of warming, while presenting hockey 'puck' and lots of stupid cross-checking and hooking. You are an asshole. Fuck you. Learn to read, or move back to Russia, sell us some oil, and then find out, Siberia is melting, wingnutski:

Technology - Nicole Allan - Siberian Methane Could Fast-Track Global Warming - The Atlantic

When you can read, notice we like to use good grammar and punctuation, in English. Capitalize letters, at the start of any sentence. Put up some links. Respond to points of information and issues. This means you, asshole! WTF, IanC . . .

Your problem is you see a world like "could" and you translate that in your tiny little mind into "will". "Could" is the language of charlatanism. Real predictions don't use that word. they tell you up front if "X" occurs "Y" will be the result. That's why sceptics are winning the arguments. All you guys can come up with is "could". We say, this is what has happened in the past and looky here, all of the bad things the charlatans are telling you will happen....didn't.

Your meme has run its course. You fooled a lot of people for a very long time now you should take your ill gotten proceeds and fade away.

 

[code1211]

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.

So what you're saying is that the Sahara was not always a desert?

I guess the big red nose you're wearing is keeping you from seeing what you post.

 

[bobgnote]

So what you're saying is that the Sahara was not always a desert? I guess the big red nose you're wearing is keeping you from seeing what you post.

I guess you are a fuck-tard, who wants to meet Santa Claus. You missed.

Why will climate science move from political to military?
1. fights; 2. wars; 3. fuck-tards in traffic.

 

[saveliberty]

So what you're saying is that the Sahara was not always a desert? I guess the big red nose you're wearing is keeping you from seeing what you post.

I guess you are a fuck-tard, who wants to meet Santa Claus. You missed.

Why will climate science move from political to military?
1. fights; 2. wars; 3. fuck-tards in traffic.

I see you started happy hour right on time today.

 

[code1211]

Westwall -

Nowhere do these people claim that the energy is cheaper then from fossil fuel sources. Also tidal energy (which I hope will be developed BTW) is useful in very small areas of the globe.

I missed this earlier.

Tidal power has considerable potential in countries with straits or large tidal harbours. It's already in use in Scotland, Norway and New Zealand, and I can imagine great potential in Japan, the US, Philipinnes, Indonesia etc etc.

As for cost - consider this, based on Total system Levelized Cost (USD/Mwh hour)

Coal 94.8

Advanced Coal 109.4

Wind 97.0

Hydro 86.4

Advanced Nuclear 113.9

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coal is not particularly cheap.

I haven't seen a realistic figure for tidal yet as it is still so new, but I can imagine it falling well below that figure for nuclear, because in the long term it requires little maintenance, few personnel, and generates large volumes of electricity.

The problem with wind and solar, at least in the USA is that if the wind stops blowing at night, we still need to be able to produce all of the grid's electric to support the society.

In the USA, if a politician allows the AC to stop as the TV's turn off and the computers shut down, he'll be leaving office like he's riding an ejection seat.

I don't know how the public feels about such things in Finland.

The cost of Solar and wind is not in place of, but rather in addition to what ever infrastructure already exists. It is likely that the life of whatever is built today will be about 30 years and that after that 30 years span, wind and solar may have improved to the point at which intermittent production can satisfy the need.

Maybe not. Who knows.

The point is that today, regardless of how you rig the numbers, there is an added cost to wind and solar that does not replace the current energy sources. It only duplicates them.

 

[bobgnote]

So what you're saying is that the Sahara was not always a desert? I guess the big red nose you're wearing is keeping you from seeing what you post.

I guess you are a fuck-tard, who wants to meet Bozo, since clowns must have been nice to you, in the past. You missed.

The Sahara was part forested area, complete with primitive drawings which indicate ancient animals and plants. It was part sea-floor, complete with shellfish-fossils, in the limestone of the Great Pyramids. Then the areas desertified or pushed up, as the African Plate moved toward the European Plate. You look it up, since you're a tard.

Be sure and read what comes up in the search, and I have to remind you to do that, since you are a stupid, fucking moron and an asshole-wingnutski, who needs to go back to Russia and sell us some more oil.

Why will climate science move from political to military?
1. fights; 2. wars; 3. oily fuck-tards in traffic.

 

[saveliberty]

The other problem is transmission of wind generated power. Look at most output numbers for wind. They use the graph at 28mph. Average wind speed where I live is 13mph. Look at what that does to power output.

 

[code1211]

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.

Blunder, under the dictionary entry for D-K effect is your picture...just sayin!

I'm trying to figure out which of the bomb throwers in this thread to put on ignore.

 

[code1211]

Westwall -

Nowhere do these people claim that the energy is cheaper then from fossil fuel sources. Also tidal energy (which I hope will be developed BTW) is useful in very small areas of the globe.

I missed this earlier.

Tidal power has considerable potential in countries with straits or large tidal harbours. It's already in use in Scotland, Norway and New Zealand, and I can imagine great potential in Japan, the US, Philipinnes, Indonesia etc etc.

As for cost - consider this, based on Total system Levelized Cost (USD/Mwh hour)

Coal 94.8

Advanced Coal 109.4

Wind 97.0

Hydro 86.4

Advanced Nuclear 113.9

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coal is not particularly cheap.

I haven't seen a realistic figure for tidal yet as it is still so new, but I can imagine it falling well below that figure for nuclear, because in the long term it requires little maintenance, few personnel, and generates large volumes of electricity.

No coal isn't but natural gas is. Also the figures for wind are very optimistic. Nowhere on Earth have they reached those levels. Wind generated power is very poor as is becoming obvious wherever the real figures become available.

The availability and portability of CNG in the USA is a tantalizing prospect.

 

[geauxtohell]

Because the big polluters can't win in the facts and science.

Therefore, they have to win in the Court of Public Opinion if they want to save $.

 

[code1211]

So what you're saying is that the Sahara was not always a desert? I guess the big red nose you're wearing is keeping you from seeing what you post.

I guess you are a fuck-tard, who wants to meet Santa Claus. You missed.

Why will climate science move from political to military?
1. fights; 2. wars; 3. fuck-tards in traffic.

I'm not reading one bit of sense in anything you post.

 

[code1211]

So what you're saying is that the Sahara was not always a desert? I guess the big red nose you're wearing is keeping you from seeing what you post.

I guess you are a fuck-tard, who wants to meet Santa Claus. You missed.

Why will climate science move from political to military?
1. fights; 2. wars; 3. fuck-tards in traffic.

I see you started happy hour right on time today.

I know! Right?

 

[bobgnote]

I know! Right?

Wingnut! Got a wingnut link for us to check out, since you two know each other? One of you has to have a wingnut link, and if you weren't fuck-tards, you should be able to get on topic, and stay there, instead of throwing a wingnut flap-and-shit-fit, at any science, news, and inference.

 

[Big Fitz]

Because the big polluters can't win in the facts and science.

Therefore, they have to win in the Court of Public Opinion if they want to save $.

"Polluters" I take it you mean all industry that isn't some ecofascist wet dream fantasy.

Tha's a whoooole lotta tuckfardery.

 

[bobgnote]

At every climate or environment-related thread, in the world, the wingnuts gather, to offer spam and virtual spam, in a circle-jerk. Some of them post pictures, all recite sock-garbage, seldom do they post links with point-by-point, on-topic information.

Wingnuts like to fly low, in duty-shifts. I wonder who is on-duty, at this thread? Get a link and some talk, geeks! Did you run out of tard-talk? Tired of hockey stick, that swats your puckey? Got beer?

 

[saveliberty]

I prefer to shread your sources bobgnote. Maybe you haven't noticed but your friends run when I show up.

 

[bobgnote]

I prefer to shread your sources bobgnote. Maybe you haven't noticed but your friends run when I show up.

I thought they were leaving, to go outside, in the air, while we type stuff up. Maybe if you would post a link, offer some scholarship, stow your stupid agenda, we'd have us a party.

I see my sources are 'shread'(sic) material, for a mighty tardy fuckup, like save-it. You might offer some actual rebuttal, rather than stupid, oppositional remarks, with a misspelling problem. I'd like to see links, and rational argument, rather than shit oozing out of your head, onto your keyboard, if you claim you are such a bitchin' boarder.

Meanwhile, the CO2 in the Arctic measures over 400 ppm, way over the safe limit, of 350 ppm, way past the 275 ppm, at the start of the industrial age:

Climate change: Arctic passes 400 parts per million milestone - CSMonitor.com

So, fuck you, very much!

 

[Big Fitz]

At every climate or environment-related thread, in the world, the wingnuts gather, to offer spam and virtual spam, in a circle-jerk. Some of them post pictures, all recite sock-garbage, seldom do they post links with point-by-point, on-topic information.

Wingnuts like to fly low, in duty-shifts. I wonder who is on-duty, at this thread? Get a link and some talk, geeks! Did you run out of tard-talk? Tired of hockey stick, that swats your puckey? Got beer?

Wow... SOunds like a description of our ecofascisti chicken little chorus right here on USMB.

Ole Crocks stops freaking out over magic CO2, Kommiekonnie takes over, then PissyChrissy, then Trolling BLunder....

Bob's nailed it.

Way to go Bob.

 

[saveliberty]

I prefer to shread your sources bobgnote. Maybe you haven't noticed but your friends run when I show up.

I thought they were leaving, to go outside, in the air, while we type stuff up. Maybe if you would post a link, offer some scholarship, stow your stupid agenda, we'd have us a party.

I see my sources are 'shread'(sic) material, for a mighty tardy fuckup, like save-it. You might offer some actual rebuttal, rather than stupid, oppositional remarks, with a misspelling problem. I'd like to see links, and rational argument, rather than shit oozing out of your head, onto your keyboard, if you claim you are such a bitchin' boarder.

Meanwhile, the CO2 in the Arctic measures over 400 ppm, way over the safe limit, of 350 ppm, way past the 275 ppm, at the start of the industrial age:

Climate change: Arctic passes 400 parts per million milestone - CSMonitor.com

So, fuck you, very much!

Check your parallel dumbass thread dimwit.

 

[westwall]

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.

Blunder, under the dictionary entry for D-K effect is your picture...just sayin!

I'm trying to figure out which of the bomb throwers in this thread to put on ignore.

Well, they're all olfraud socks so it doesn't really matter. They are all cut from the same cloth and I find them wildly entertaining.