Quote:I pretty much just ignore this thread since it's gone so far off topic, but here is a question. Does the alternative to coal have to be "green"? What about natural gas or nuclear power?
Natural gas is fantastic. It's cheap, abundant, and very clean burning.
Quote:Natural gas is fantastic. It's cheap, abundant, and very clean burning.
It won't suffice since it doesn't adequately punish humanity for the damage done to Mother Earth.
Quote:I'm actually pretty much ok with nuclear power. Fracking gives me pause, especially when people's water supplies are threatened, both by contamination as well as depletion from use in the process itself. It would also help if all those machines used in the fracking process were converted from diesel to natural gas, and the methane loss in the process were better controlled.
Fair enough. Fracking for the most part (as far as I know) isn't as bad as people make it out to be, but if it is proven that it is harmful, then I would be for limited and/or non-use of the technique.
So if we want to eliminate coal as a major energy source, why are we not investing in nuclear technology? Why is it that we essentially waste natural gas? It's not that difficult to convert a regular engine to natural gas (think cars, buses, tractors, etc.). The infrastructure isn't really in place, but natural gas (which is plentiful) can power not only vehicles, but can also heat homes or be used for water heaters, etc.
The thing is, the far left "green crowd" seems to be trying to force solar, wind and/or hydro power in order to be "green". The problem there is that none of those methods are efficient enough to produce enough power to meet demand. Sure those methods can supplement, but there is no way that any of those methods can produce enough to meet demand and have reserve power.
Indians and Red Sox played in the coldest home opener ever to be played in Cleveland.
Quote:Global Warming, is there ANYTHING it doesn't cause? 
Here is a link to the assessment itself. Take a look for yourself.
<a class="bbc_url" href='https://health2016.globalchange.gov'>https://health2016.globalchange.gov</a>
Quote:Yeah...
![[Image: Climate-Change-Resized.jpg]](http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Climate-Change-Resized.jpg)
Would it help you understand if I included more pictures? I thought you might be on to chapter books at this point but maybe not
Quote:Would it help you understand if I included more pictures? I thought you might be on to chapter books at this point but maybe not
Whatever you gotta do to look down on the rest of us.
Quote:Yeah...
To be fair, they were only 3 years early on the world war thing...
Quote:To be fair, they were only 3 years early on the world war thing...
What we're involved in hardly constitutes a world war.
Quote:Yeah...
Well, I have to say, you have definitely nailed it. Somebody, somewhere, some time in the past, was wrong about something. Therefore, don't believe anything you don't like. Because there's a chance they're wrong.
Quote:Well, I have to say, you have definitely nailed it. Somebody, somewhere, some time in the past, was wrong about something. Therefore, don't believe anything you don't like. Because there's a chance they're wrong.
Well, there's much less chance they're right, as their own history of fear mongering shows. At some point dont they lose credibility in your eyes, or do just keep believing that this time is different? Its like domestic abuse almost, "he's really changed this time!"
Quote:Well, there's much less chance they're right, as their own history of fear mongering shows. At some point dont they lose credibility in your eyes, or do just keep believing that this time is different? Its like domestic abuse almost, "he's really changed this time!"
One Times article from the 70s is not something to lose a lot of sleep over. I can show you the science of why and how global warming works if you are interested. It's very simple. It's 4th grade Lvl science. Conversely, you can show me the science of how global warming doesn't exist. You don't need to make as hominem attacks. Just spell it out.
Or can you not actually address the science?
Quote:One Times article from the 70s is not something to lose a lot of sleep over. I can show you the science of why and how global warming works if you are interested. It's very simple. It's 4th grade Lvl science. Conversely, you can show me the science of how global warming doesn't exist. You don't need to make as hominem attacks. Just spell it out.
Or can you not actually address the science?
When the science is addressed you just call the poster a troll and disappear for a day or so before coming back with more copy pasta. The numbers your theory are based on have been shown to be false or manipulated but you just double down. It's just funny to me to watch you repeat your catechism every few days. And the best part is your condescension as you step down from your exalted seat at the right hand of St. Gore to enlighten us poor beknighted souls.
Quote:A lot more than one time. The prophets of doom have never been right.
And if you look at the actual science rather than the extreme disaster press releases, most of the possible outcomes are of limited concern. The IPCC has HUGE ranges of pretty much every theory. For example, in the latest IPCC report the sea level rise per century goes from 8" to 4 meters. Well that narrows it down! The current rate, which hasn't changed since before mankind began enriching the atmosphere with CO2, is 8" per century. So the IPCC's range includes the null hypothesis which appears to be the case. The temperature change from a doubling of CO2 is predicted to be in a range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius. There's a lot of slack in that, and all of the disaster scenarios you read about in The Guardian are based on 4.5 along with an unrealistic acceleration in CO2 concentration. Note that using the actual measurements of global temperature vs. CO2 levels, the effect of a doubling of CO2 comes in below 1.5 C.
Don't worry, Oface will be along later to explain why Wiki says you don't understand elementary school science.
Quote:Don't worry, Oface will be along later to explain why Wiki says you don't understand elementary school science.
And yet you still haven't taken me up on the offer. Nor have you presented a scientific counter argument. Your current disposition clearly precludes you from critical thinking. Try using science and not politics and see how far you get. Good luck
Quote:A lot more than one time. The prophets of doom have never been right.
And if you look at the actual science rather than the extreme disaster press releases, most of the possible outcomes are of limited concern. The IPCC has HUGE ranges of pretty much every theory. For example, in the latest IPCC report the sea level rise per century goes from 8" to 4 meters. Well that narrows it down! The current rate, which hasn't changed since before mankind began enriching the atmosphere with CO2, is 8" per century. So the IPCC's range includes the null hypothesis which appears to be the case. The temperature change from a doubling of CO2 is predicted to be in a range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius. There's a lot of slack in that, and all of the disaster scenarios you read about in The Guardian are based on 4.5 along with an unrealistic acceleration in CO2 concentration. Note that using the actual measurements of global temperature vs. CO2 levels, the effect of a doubling of CO2 comes in below 1.5 C.
Since you are a scientist, maybe you can explain why Miami is flooding so often these days. St Augustine also.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/en...45652.html
https://weather.com/science/environment/...level-rise