No, I think it shows the bullshit. Whatever you claim, there are a LOT of greenies who are saying “Global warming is real, we need to spend a trillion on only solar and wind, no nuclear or hydro”. That anybody can claim to know the science but think this is bullshit.
So far the only way you guys can sound reasonable is by saying global warming won’t be so bad or so fast or that green tech will only be a part of the solution. But those all beg the questions. If it won’t be so bad, why spend the money on taking the chance? You’re saying it will be a long scale, smaller change, then why will that necessarily be that bad? You say that bad things can happen on the way to it happening, but that’s a separate proposal. Now you have to show me that AGW will have lesser bad effects in the short term, which is much more specific and much harder to prove. And how about the other countries? Now we gotta switch them to a lot of nuclear
the severity, and thus the calculus, changes with your claims.
You are ignoring facts and hadwaving away arguments because you can’t deal with them via reasoned debate.
This is more ignorance on your part. The warming and sea level rise is a gradual thing.
Some people care about the world they leave to their children. And the vast majority of climate scientists think warming is very likely. You’re just wrong.
Public opinion has nothing to do with if something is factual.
Well, the request for cites is not only for us, but for you.
That price you mention was typical of the 80’s, currently solar panels are currently selling for as low as US$0.70 per watt (7-April-2012 (there are cheaper now)) in industrial quantities
And so we come to the heart of the matter. You think that you are ordained by magical rite to spend the American people’s money against their will. Got it.
Elitist through and through. Deep down it isn’t even about helping the world, it’s about your own moral superiority.
Right, genius, and logically, if they’re gradual, or maybe not even happening, that probably won’t justify spending oodles of taxpayer money.
ehhh… First you said it’s gradual, now you’re mentioning our children. Which is it? Cause including children only adds like 30 years to a timescale, brah. You’re not making any sense.
Anyway, if it’s that far down the line, yeah , I don’t care that much, and I’ll take my chances and have America not spend all that money, since you cold just be flat out wrong
No, I’m just asking you to put your money where your mouth is. Ultimately, all you’ve been doing is claiming “consensus”, like it fucking matters at all in science, which it doesn’t at all, and just asserting that AGW is true. You fundamentally didn’t answer any of my questions about AGW inconsistencies. Like, why even care about green tech at all when we could build nuclear and hydro, and given that AGW is the main problem? Why have anyone spend all that money for the much more expensive solar? Nuclear has had one serious disaster in one shitty communist country, and one incident in America. Sounds pretty fucking safe to me.
And again, how can you expect me to believe you can quantify what the early damage from slowly occurring AGW will be? Where is the data to back that up? Not just one or two shitty articles, I mean really, what specifically is going to happen (and none of that “more extreme weather” bullshit which is just a way to be able to claim that all weather happening is AGW), and how specifically do you know it?
What you fail to realize is, you’re so certain, fine, but you’ve failed to pass the bar to expect people to spend insane amounts of money from the public coffers
But, oh yeah, you don’t care about that, you just want to mandate it your way
sounds like bullshit, I don’t believe it. I was a homebuilder and told the prices, and I know what goes into making a solar cell, which is a lot (fucking absolutely pure glass, insane heat, rare metals). Sounds like someone bought an old one someone wanted to unload.
You should not fall for the refusal to see the march of time issue that affects many conservatives, you were a home builder indeed, but prices have tumbled down and so should be your calculations and train of very conservative points that have little to do with the changing environment regarding the price of solar power.
Nope, that does not work here, you need to cite the source that is telling you that, otherwise you do not even have a sauce.
Red herring, as I pointed too before. The problem is the emissions, for the us it will matter little from where those emissions will come from, what we have to do is to control the emissions, regardless of the source. I do think making Keystone is not a good idea, if it has to be done then bills like the one pointed at that support solar wind and nuclear power should be approved too as a counterbalance.
Please don’t attribute things to me that I didn’t say, so it’s easier for you to argue against. That, by the way, is what Strawmanning actually means.
Before mocking me, you might want to check if what you’re advocating makes any sense. Why is something gradual not a big deal? I’ll raise your core body temperature by a tenth of a degree per hour. No big deal, right?
Because gradual means in graduations. Effects are being noted now. My daughter will have more effects. There are currently island nations that are in danger of having no drinking water because of sea-level rise. Gradual means slowly. Write that down.
That’s profoundly nasty. You may not care what happens to people a hundred years from now, but I do. Also, the vast majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is extremely likely to happen.
You’re ignorant of how science works. You don’t even have a basic understanding of peer-review. You shouldn’t be proud of being so ignorant. You shouldn’t defend it. This site is about fighting ignorance, not wallowing in it like a sow in filth.
The “inconsistencies” you bring up are the result of your profound lack of knowledge and understanding about this issue.
Because nuclear is a part of any reasonable solution, but it can render entire cities uninhabitable in the event of disaster or terrorism. That means thought should be put into its implementation.
Solar is likely to play a part. No one is credibly thinking solar is the only solution, at least with current technology.
That’s because you’re ignorant. Look up Fukushima. I’m not saying that nuclear is unusable. It clearly is. But you don’t want a reactor in the center of Manhattan or LA.
Because the vast majority of climate scientists agree that AGW is real. And there is currently enough ice on land to cause huge disruptions to our society. Not to mention drought, crops and other issues.
I’m personally not certain. I just accept what the vast majority of climate scientists say. Because I accept scientific consensus, unlike you. Your ignorance is not the equal of a scientist’s knowledge.
All thoughtful people should care about those that will come after us.
whatever brah, if these are the arguments you guys make in favor of massive economic resturcturing and costs, you’ve found out why you can’t seem to convince anyone. Though I guess that doesn’t matter to you guys since you oh so creepily imply that your ABSOLUTELY right, and so people’s wishes don’t even matter. Honestly, it’ apparent that you guys would storm the white house and take it by force if you think it’d work
all I was presented with is the same crappy evidence, endless appeals to consensus, and no one answering my questions about the serious inconsistencies in AGW theory. No sale, brah. No sale.
Yeah, because of the huge danger of earthquakes in the eastern half of the country:rolleyes:
which basically means you didn’t answer my question, BTW. Why any green tech when nuclear is cheaper (once you get rid of the rdidiculous regulations)? We could build quake-resistant reactors, it isn’t hard
Not if it’s 300 years down the line and it’s a maybe and it might even be good (more warmth and moisture could be good) and you’re asking us to spend billions if not trillions of dollars
honestly, looking at your other comments you didn’t even really answer the things I said that you quoted, certainly not with any real scientific data.
You’re literally just asserting and appealing to authority.
YOU HAVE NOT MADE YOUR CASE TO PROMPT SUCH ACTION AND EXPENDITURE
It’s hard to convince some people because many people have the same resistance to facts and reality that conflicts with their ideology that you do.
Sadly, because you accept the RW Media’s version of reality, you’re tough to convince otherwise. Take this thread, you’ve been shown time and again that things you assert simply aren’t true, but based purely on faith you assume that the facts must be wrong, instead of what you believe.
If there weren’t a concerted effort at misinforming people there would be more political will for this. It used to be that the GOP was for Cap and Trade, but because of the rise if the TP, they had to back off.
You think the evidence is crappy because you don’t understand it.
Scientific consensus is how science works. Consensus isn’t a popularity contest, it’s a process whereby findings are checked and rechecked. But you don’t know that.
I’ve answered the ones I saw, why not specifically number them.
As I said, thought needs to be put into where to use nuclear. Geological stability is an example of thought. Get it?
Because nuclear has drawbacks, like in the event of disaster or terrorism, it can render cities uninhabitable.
I’m not asking you to spend anything. I’m saying that policy should be driven by reality, not what you hear on the RW media.
Also, there are effects that will happen before 300 years. Sea levels are rising now. Millions of people being displaced will be a big deal. It will cause political instability and needless suffering.
Your ignorance about basic science and desire to handwave away things you don’t agree with makes it kind of a waste of time. Please list specifically what you’d like to know?
An appeal to authority isn’t a fallacy when the it’s an actual authority on the subject. People who know more than you agree that AGW is a fact. Because of ignorance and lack of training you don’t have the capacity to dismiss it credibly.
I haven’t made the case. The world’s climate scientists have made the case.
Nope, sorry. You either have the evidence or you don’t. It’s not about consensus. You didn’t answer serious questions, and you only offered the same crappy data.
No, I raised serious questions about inconsistencies you honestly did not answer
No, I understand it just fine. Same old shit. It’s just so far from proving enough for what you’re asking us to do
Well, you didn’t quote any reasonable study actually taking into account growing cities (statistical methods are bullshit, I want to see actual site-visits and building histories). You’ve been wishy-washy about the gradual thing, your answer to the nucler solution issue is still bullshit, and you never defeated what I said about ice core samples. Your mentioning of cross-references to other events with other data is somewhat helpful, but going 50,000+ years with super certainty is still shaky, since there could have been things happening that you don’t know about. Oh, and you also didn’t cite anything serious that proves that you know the short terms effects are going to be bad. Why the hell would more water and heat cause droughts? The whole thing is a second proposal and needs a whole nother set of proof data
The Berkeley Earth team of skeptics (already cited) did check, they indeed expected to find problems with the evidence, but since they confirmed what the scientists reported before (including taking into account growing cities) the denier sources have not bothered to tell their followers much about what this funded group of skeptics did find.
