# Is global warming falsifiable? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 6, 2014, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786 "2014-05-06T07:30:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 34
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/662 "2014-11-18T00:40:29Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > Nope, sorry. We all know how statistics can lie. Please don’t play that game around here. It is not a game. That number is based on several studies made to find the levels of consensus among scientists and the evidence. > **[Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial](https://skepticalscience.com/debunking-climate-consensus-denial.html)** > > Communicating the expert consensus is very important in terms of increasing public awareness of human-caused climate change and support for climate solutions.  Thus it's perhaps not surprising that Cook et al. (2013) and its 97% consensus result have... > [@](#): > > The 97% Consensus is a Robust Result > > Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence. For example, Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004. Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research. Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts. Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming. > > In addition to these studies, we have the National Academies of Science from 33 different countries all endorsing the consensus. Dozens of scientific organizations have endorsed the consensus on human-caused global warming. Only one has ever rejected the consensus - the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - and even they shifted to a neutral position when members threatened to not renew their memberships due to its position of climate denial. > > In short, the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming is a robust result, found using several different methods in various studies over the past decade. It really shouldn’t be a surprise at this point, and denying it is, well, denial. > [@EdwinAmi](#): > > [SNIP] > > How could you also know it’ll happen super fast? THAT’S A WHOLE NOTHER SCIENTIFIC PROPOSITION. Even 500 years in earth’s historical time would be blindingly fast, but it would be so slow as to make the whole thing not even a concern for the human race. As the loss of ice in the poles is accelerating (and the contrarians claimed that was not going to happen) the prediction of what will happen in the long run is to see a few hundred years of ocean rise. But that does not mean that we will not see related issues cropping up sooner. > **[200 floods-a-year: Sea level rise will inundate Jersey Shore communities, new...](https://www.nj.com/news/2014/10/flooding_nj.html)** > > The high tides fueling minor flooding along parts of the Jersey Shore today will be able to push water further inland and cause property damage in a few decades, according to a new study, as rising sea levels makes waterfront communities more... > [@](#): > > The report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that flooding is already occurring more often in places like Atlantic City. The city now averages nearly 30 days per year with tidal flooding, according to the report, up from five days per year in the 1970s. But as sea levels increase, the report says the city — and other coastal towns — can expect more frequent and disruptive flooding from high tides. > > “Within the timeframe of a 30-year mortgage, East Coast communities will see dramatic changes in the number and severity of tidal floods each year, unless, of course, serious steps are taken to try to manage those floodwaters, and those steps are successful,” Erika Spanger-Siegfried, a senior analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists and a co-author of the report, said in a statement. > > “We expect the number of tidal floods to triple in the Atlantic City area to 90 a year in just 15 years,” said Spanger-Siegfried. “Without adaptation efforts, roads that link west Atlantic City to the mainland, could end up closed on a regular basis.” > > The study — called “Encroaching Tides: How Sea Level Rise and Tidal Flooding Threaten U.S. East and Gulf Coast Communities over the Next 30 Years” — relied on 52 tide gauges from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration along the East and Gulf coasts. The analysis uses coastal flood advisories issued by the National Weather Service as an indicator of present-day flooding and relies on projections that sea level will rise four feet by the end of the century. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/663 "2014-11-18T00:41:23Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > Yet you fail to explain why they so adamantly oppose nuclear power, . . . Who is this “they” that you claim oppose nuclear power? Certainly, there are a number of people who do fear and oppose nuclear power, but I have never heard this group associated with the IPCC or with anyone specifically connected to investigations into Anthropogenic Global Warming. Trying to attack the science behind AGW by attacking a few opponents of nuclear power who are not connected to the AGW discussion is a fail. ---
**Author:** ![EdwinAmi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5fc32e/32.png) [@EdwinAmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwinAmi)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/664 "2014-11-18T00:46:48Z")
OK, so I’m seeing a lot of moving the goal posts (it’s a few hundred years change), and denial of basic facts If this were as big a problem as is being claimed (i.e. the biggest problem ever, and global), then indeed the solution would go full nuclear. No, that wouldn’t be stupid given the proposed problem. And no, ending suburbs would not be stupid. You’re just changing the parameters as you see fit Oh, and relatively crappy studies about “consensus” with highly self-selective data. ---
**Author:** ![EdwinAmi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5fc32e/32.png) [@EdwinAmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwinAmi)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/665 "2014-11-18T00:50:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Solar and wind are useful. Nuclear has its place, but it being able to render entire cities barren in the event of natural disaster or terrorism is something that intelligent people need to consider. See? Right here. You’ve lost. It is IMPOSSIBLE to run at most maybe no more than 10% of our electric of green powers. Most of it will have to come from nuclear, period. To propose that we attempt to deforest and build solar cells on thousands of square miles of land, and do the same with wind, instead of just building more nucler plants and spending a bit more money on security and safety, well, then, you’re just exposing the lie. There is no doubt nuclear would be the solution ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/666 "2014-11-18T00:52:18Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > OK, so I’m seeing a lot of moving the goal posts (it’s a few hundred years change), and denial of basic facts You’re the one denying facts here. Just you. > [@](#): > > If this were as big a problem as is being claimed (i.e. the biggest problem ever, and global), then indeed the solution would go full nuclear. No, that wouldn’t be stupid given the proposed problem. And no, ending suburbs would not be stupid. Global warming is a big problem. And nuclear is part of the solution. But as I said before, intelligent people should want nuclear’s use to be tempered by the fact that because of disaster or terrorism it can make a city uninhabitable for decades. > [@](#): > > You’re just changing the parameters as you see fit I am attempting to have a discussion with a person who is flailing around. > [@](#): > > Oh, and relatively crappy studies about “consensus” with highly self-selective data. You are making an assertion based on nothing but that this assertion helps you preserve your ideological misinformation. Not persuasive. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/667 "2014-11-18T00:56:16Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > It is IMPOSSIBLE to run at most maybe no more than 10% of our electric of green powers. I’ve seen similar numbers before, but I’m not sure what their basis is. Do you have a cite on it? ---
**Author:** ![EdwinAmi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5fc32e/32.png) [@EdwinAmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwinAmi)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/668 "2014-11-18T00:58:45Z")
No, not really, you lost. Unless you can explain how the ludicrous proposition that we can replace most of our power with green power without nuclear or hydro, then you’ve lost. The idea is absurd. Those techs involve such HUGE land-to-power rations and cost-to-wattage ratios, and are so inconsistent, that you damn well better back your shit up. It’s all basic science, the basic science AGW people claim to be using. > [@](#): > > You are making an assertion based on nothing but that this assertion helps you preserve your ideological misinformation. Nope, I made that assertion on the fact that they were published by people who were clearly looking for their result in the first place, and they even chose crappy things to look at as data. How about defining “expert” first, and THEN doing a tally? And what does it matter anyway? All that is is appeal to authority. Last I checked science doesn’t appeal to authority. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/669 "2014-11-18T01:00:53Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > OK, so I’m seeing a lot of moving the goal posts (it’s a few hundred years change), and denial of basic facts Nope, what happens is that very little good information was offered to you by your sources. > [@EdwinAmi](#): > > If this were as big a problem as is being claimed (i.e. the biggest problem ever, and global), then indeed the solution would go full nuclear. No, that wouldn’t be stupid given the proposed problem. And no, ending suburbs would not be stupid. Again, not everybody is against nuclear, and to change all alternatives have to be considered. > **[Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012 Introduced - OurEnergyPolicy](https://www.ourenergypolicy.org/clean-energy-standard-act-of-2012-introduced/)** > > Senate Energy & Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) has introduced the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012, which would require electric utilities to derive increasing percentages of their supply mix from low-CO2 sources. The bill would... > [@](#): > > Sources eligible under the legislation include: renewables, such as wind and solar, “qualified” renewable biomass and waste-to-energy, hydropower, natural gas, and nuclear. Facilities with CO2 capture and storage, and some combined heat and power facilities, are also eligible. The bill establishes a market-based credit trading scheme, within which utilities could purchase compliance credits from other utilities. > [@](#): > > The Act was introduced with no Republican support. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the top Republican on the Energy & Natural Resources Committee has said that she will “only get behind such a standard if it replaces federal climate regulations.” [The Hill] > [@EdwinAmi](#): > > You’re just changing the parameters as you see fit Not really, the explanations offered so far are to deal with the wrong information that was offered to you, it is usually coming from denier sources that do receive a lot of support from very powerful interests that do not want to see the common sense regulations come to minimize the issue and indeed have a good economy for the future generations. > [@EdwinAmi](#): > > Oh, and relatively crappy studies about “consensus” with highly self-selective data. Not correct either. What you claim here is possible only by ignoring that different approaces wer done to find the actual consensus among the experts. > **[The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust](https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm)** > > \The 97% consensus has been independently confirmed by a 2009 survey of Earth scientists, a 2011 analysis of public statements by climate scientists and analysis of peer-reviewed climate research.\ > [@](#): > > Tol’s Rejected Comment > > Richard Tol has also advanced various criticisms of Cook et al. (2013). It’s worth noting that Tol does not dispute the existence of the consensus, writing: > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\* “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”\*\* > > Tol has nevertheless criticized the methods applied during the Cook et al. survey. For example, he has argued that the literature search should have been conducted with Scopus rather than the Web of Science in order to capture more papers, but also that fewer papers should have been included in the survey in order to focus on those specifically researching the causes of global warming. Tol has also applied various statistical tests comparing the abstract ratings to the author self-ratings, but these tests are invalid because the two phases of the survey considered different information (abstracts only vs. full papers) and are thus not comparable. > > In fact, when we released the self-rating data, we explicitly discussed the difference between the two datasets and how the difference was actually instructive. As John Cook wrote, > > ``` > "That's not to say our ratings of abstracts exactly matched the self-ratings by the papers' authors. On the contrary, the two sets measure different things and not only are differences expected, they're instructive." > > ``` > > Ultimately Tol submitted his criticisms to Environmental Research Letters as a comment, but the submission was summarily rejected by the editor who described it as a speculative opinion piece that does not identify any clear errors that would call the paper’s conclusions into question. > > In short, the 97% consensus has passed peer-review, while Tol’s criticisms have not. Moreover, all of Tol’s criticisms only apply to the abstract ratings, while the self-ratings also found the same 97% consensus result, completely independent from the abstract ratings. Indeed, the bolded part points to an skeptic that found out that it had to criticize one of the most recent studies in a roundabout way, anyhow he had to acknowledge that indeed the levels of support among the experts is into the super majority levels. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/670 "2014-11-18T01:05:36Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > See? Right here. Okay. > [@](#): > > You’ve lost. Show, don’t tell. > [@](#): > > It is IMPOSSIBLE to run at most maybe no more than 10% of our electric of green powers. Is it? Germany gets 31% from renewables. [Solar power in Germany - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany) Note that Germany is not as sunny as, for instance, the American southwest. And if we were, to say, invent a reasonably economical biofuel, that would help a lot. Because the carbon the cars would burn would be sequestered by the next generation of switchgrass, or whatever. > [@](#): > > Most of it will have to come from nuclear, period. To propose that we attempt to deforest and build solar cells on thousands of square miles of land, and do the same with wind, instead of just building more nucler plants and spending a bit more money on security and safety, well, then, you’re just exposing the lie. There is no doubt nuclear would be the solution Nuclear is a solution. But it has dangers. Like that it can render cities uninhabitable for decades. So a solution that doesn’t require nuclear, or minimizes its use is superior. Also, we don’t need to have no carbon emissions. We need to have less. The Earth sequesters carbon. We’re just currently overcoming that natural level of sequestration. ---
**Author:** ![EdwinAmi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5fc32e/32.png) [@EdwinAmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwinAmi)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/671 "2014-11-18T01:05:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Do you have a cite on it? I don’t need to cite anything. Anybody who understands basic science understands this stuff. A solar cell, for example, costs $15 per watt of generation. One thousand watts for one hour costs NINE CENTS! Do you see the differential!? Can you do those numbers? Furthermore, solar cells never last longer than 30 years, and take 15 years to recoup their cost. Furthermore, they have inconsistent power. To level it off, you’d have to build like endless plants of battery stations, or water power storage stations by blowing up mountaintops. And the energy density is extremely low. The greenies like to cite that it would only take a 35 mile square to power all the nation, but that’s only the wattage capacity, and at the latitude of the new mexico desert. That ignores, again, that the sun goes down at night. And also, that’s 1,225 square miles, That’s HUGE. LIKE ENORMOUS HUGE. You’d have to re-plan cities around all that shit. You would HAVE to bulldoze suburbs and force people into cities. And oh yeah, all the space and money taken up by building and maintaining the power converters, low volt DC to AC. We might not even know how big those could be scaled up. And that’s just talking about solar cells, wind power is equally frugal. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/672 "2014-11-18T01:06:16Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > No, not really, you lost. > Unless you can explain how the ludicrous proposition that we can replace most of our power with green power without nuclear or hydro, then you’ve lost. The idea is absurd. The most serious proponents of this repeatedly are telling you that indeed nuclear and hydro are options to use, so what you claim here is mostly a strawman. ---
**Author:** ![EdwinAmi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5fc32e/32.png) [@EdwinAmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwinAmi)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/673 "2014-11-18T01:08:06Z")
I’m extremely skeptical of the 31% claims. I’d like to know how they came up with that number, it sounds like it may be funny business with the feed-in-tariffs. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/674 "2014-11-18T01:08:44Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > I don’t need to cite anything. Anybody who understands basic science understands this stuff. > A solar cell, for example, costs $15 per watt of generation. One thousand watts for one hour costs NINE CENTS! Do you see the differential!? Can you do those numbers? Furthermore, solar cells never last longer than 30 years, and take 15 years to recoup their cost. Furthermore, they have inconsistent power. To level it off, you’d have to build like endless plants of battery stations, or water power storage stations by blowing up mountaintops. And the energy density is extremely low. The greenies like to cite that it would only take a 35 mile square to power all the nation, but that’s only the wattage capacity, and at the latitude of the new mexico desert. That ignores, again, that the sun goes down at night. And also, that’s 1,225 square miles, That’s HUGE. LIKE ENORMOUS HUGE. You’d have to re-plan cities around all that shit. You would HAVE to bulldoze suburbs and force people into cities. Not really. > **[E&E News: Could suburbs become the future of renewable energy?](https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/1059986079)** > > Environmentalists have a long-held contempt for the sprawl of suburbia, where the low rooftops of tract housing sometimes seem to stretch to the horizon and where commuters spend their days spewing carbon dioxide into the air. But now some... > [@](#): > > In a recent paper, the researchers mapped Auckland’s solar potential by determining the maximum potential energy that could be made available by efficiently installing photovoltaic (PV) systems on a sample of buildings throughout the city, from downtown skyscrapers out to the suburbs. > > The suburbs stood out. “Low, dense suburbia is not only the most efficient collector of solar energy, but enough excess electricity can be generated to power daily transport needs of suburbia and also contribute to peak daytime electrical loads in the city center,” the researchers wrote in the study. > > Transport and urban planning debates have often ended with the assumption that compact cities would be more energy-efficient, given the shorter traveling distances and easier access to the grid. In this context, the Auckland study has “big planning implications,” according to Hugh Byrd, a professor of architecture at the University of Auckland and lead author of the study. > > “Suburbs have always been seen as a horrible thing in terms of fossil fuels, and they are,” Byrd said. “But clearly, if you use the energy sources from your own roof and use electric vehicles, it suddenly turns the whole equation upside down and makes suburbia, from a transport view, very attractive.” ---
**Author:** ![EdwinAmi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5fc32e/32.png) [@EdwinAmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwinAmi)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/675 "2014-11-18T01:10:02Z")
> [@](#): > > that indeed nuclear and hydro are options to use, Except for all the other greenies that shriek and howl at both. If you can’t get a consensus among yourselves on the solutions, why should I believe your other claims of consensus?Why should I believe that those people wont be in charge when you do get your policies passed? Consensus consensus, consensus. Yeah, great freggin consensus ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/676 "2014-11-18T01:10:14Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > I don’t need to cite anything. So…the 10% number is a guess? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/677 "2014-11-18T01:11:21Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > Except for all the other greenies that shriek and howl at both. If you can’t get a consensus among yourselves on the solutions, why should I believe your other claims of consensus?Why should I believe that those people wont be in charge when you do get your policies passed? > Consensus consensus, consensus. Yeah, great freggin consensus Hold on. You think that scientific consensus is the same thing as political consensus? I think I see the disconnect now. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/678 "2014-11-18T01:14:35Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > Except for all the other greenies that shriek and howl at both. If you can’t get a consensus among yourselves on the solutions, why should I believe your other claims of consensus?Why should I believe that those people wont be in charge when you do get your policies passed? > Consensus consensus, consensus. Yeah, great freggin consensus The very people you seem to support in politics for sure will not. As the Energy bill I pointed at showed. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/679 "2014-11-18T01:14:37Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > I don’t need to cite anything. This is why your ignorance persists in the face of facts. > [@](#): > > Anybody who understands basic science understands this stuff. > A solar cell, for example, costs $15 per watt of generation. One thousand watts for one hour costs NINE CENTS! Do you see the differential!? Can you do those numbers? Furthermore, solar cells never last longer than 30 years, and take 15 years to recoup their cost. Furthermore, they have inconsistent power. To level it off, you’d have to build like endless plants of battery stations, or water power storage stations by blowing up mountaintops. And the energy density is extremely low. The greenies like to cite that it would only take a 35 mile square to power all the nation, but that’s only the wattage capacity, and at the latitude of the new mexico desert. That ignores, again, that the sun goes down at night. And also, that’s 1,225 square miles, That’s HUGE. LIKE ENORMOUS HUGE. You’d have to re-plan cities around all that shit. You would HAVE to bulldoze suburbs and force people into cities. > And oh yeah, all the space and money taken up by building and maintaining the power converters, low volt DC to AC. We might not even know how big those could be scaled up. No one is credibly saying that solar alone is the solution. At least with current technology. But you’re so confused on this issue, that you think poking holes in solar’s ability to be a one-shot solution is the same thing as undercutting the consensus of climate science. > [@](#): > > And that’s just talking about solar cells, wind power is equally frugal. Did you mean futile? ---
**Author:** ![EdwinAmi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5fc32e/32.png) [@EdwinAmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwinAmi)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/680 "2014-11-18T01:24:58Z")
blah blah blah, so all you guys can show me is that SOME enviros can take a reasonabe approach, by in part also downplaying the seriousness of global warming and how fast it will happen, which just raises the question why we should even care in that case (honestly, anything occuring over a 150 or more span isn’t even worth spending the money when the theory could be flat out wrong and the costs are definitely high and the effects of AGW might not be so harmful) Anyway you slice it, it don’t work out to justify moving without a direct democratic vote by the American people to spend their money. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/681 "2014-11-18T01:28:01Z")
Well. Guess that’s settled, then. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=33) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=35)