Bulletin of Atomic Scientists on G****l W*****g
Sep 9, 2019 12:11:57 #
Sep 9, 2019 12:43:38 #
G****l w*****g isn't. If you look at actual facts one will find that there are very simple explanations for rising temperature averages. Otherwise, it's more of a "religious" belief rather than science.
--Bob
--Bob
John_F wrote:
Sep 9, 2019 13:42:28 #
Cite the errors in the analysis that you perceive.
rmalarz wrote:
G****l w*****g isn't. If you look at actual facts one will find that there are very simple explanations for rising temperature averages. Otherwise, it's more of a "religious" belief rather than science.
--Bob
--Bob
Sep 9, 2019 13:55:33 #
John_F wrote:
Cite the errors in the analysis that you perceive.
That’s easy, the first sentence is a lie. To make that false claim below as if doing so would stop g****l w*****g is pure nonsense.
“To halt g****l w*****g, the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by human activities such as f****l f**l burning, cement production, and deforestation needs to be brought all the way to zero.”
Sep 9, 2019 14:49:48 #
First off, John, we have to go back to the fall of the Soviet Union. Although not an ally, they do provide global weather data. However, due to the expense of maintaining their weather stations in Siberia, they shut some of them down. That removed the low-end measurements from data. This caused the average global temperatures to increase. Additionally, they moved some of the stations nearer to areas that were inhabited. This resulted in temperature readings that were higher than those stations were recording.
Now, as of late, civilization is encroaching on remote locations, with the same result. Here's an article covering the latest.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/climate-global-warming-data-locations/
--Bob
Now, as of late, civilization is encroaching on remote locations, with the same result. Here's an article covering the latest.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/climate-global-warming-data-locations/
--Bob
John_F wrote:
Cite the errors in the analysis that you perceive.
Sep 9, 2019 15:27:13 #
John_F wrote:
Assuming that this piece is dead on accurate, there is a very simple way to illiminate f****l f**ls from generatingb electricty and heating as well. But nobody is even consideringb the easiest fix, that would greatlyb reduce CO2 production. NUCLEAR power. that way f****l f**ls would only be used for vehicles
Sep 9, 2019 19:01:38 #
boberic wrote:
Assuming that this piece is dead on accurate, there is a very simple way to illiminate f****l f**ls from generatingb electricty and heating as well. But nobody is even consideringb the easiest fix, that would greatlyb reduce CO2 production. NUCLEAR power. that way f****l f**ls would only be used for vehicles
Nuclear isn't the only alternative, and it's certainly not without its own problems.
Lots of others, wind, tides, solar. As to vehicles? Electric or fuel cells come to mind.
Nothing is impossible if we put our minds to it. Shutting out the real world will only result in the death of the planet and this is the only one we've got.
Sep 9, 2019 19:12:21 #
John_F wrote:
First sentence t***slates to, we are already dead already.
When China India Pakistan....are on board let me know.
Sep 9, 2019 21:33:55 #
Frank T wrote:
Nuclear isn't the only alternative, and it's certainly not without its own problems.
Lots of others, wind, tides, solar. As to vehicles? Electric or fuel cells come to mind.
Nothing is impossible if we put our minds to it. Shutting out the real world will only result in the death of the planet and this is the only one we've got.
Lots of others, wind, tides, solar. As to vehicles? Electric or fuel cells come to mind.
Nothing is impossible if we put our minds to it. Shutting out the real world will only result in the death of the planet and this is the only one we've got.
Wind and solar just can't generate enough energy to end f****l f**l usage. Tides have been experimented but so far the technology has turned up nothing. Electric cars are a possibility but long distance driving needs a lot more technology to make it work, ans it just can't power large (trucks) vehicles. Electricty has been generated the exact same way since the very begining of its use. Moreover if the US were to stop ALL f****l f**l usage tomorrow, it would have zero effect on worldwide CO2 production.
Sep 9, 2019 21:44:57 #
Quite true that an operating reactor produces power without CO2. But the nuclear fuel cycle has a front side and a backside. These two sides require energy in a form that a reactor can not produce. Also there are forms of power usages that electricity can not provide. I spent a couple of years on the Navy’s Life-of-Hull reactor development.
boberic wrote:
Assuming that this piece is dead on accurate, there is a very simple way to illiminate f****l f**ls from generatingb electricty and heating as well. But nobody is even consideringb the easiest fix, that would greatlyb reduce CO2 production. NUCLEAR power. that way f****l f**ls would only be used for vehicles
Sep 9, 2019 21:49:41 #
Nature has a history-proven method of correcting imbalances. In the g****l w*****g case, it is reduction of the energy consumers. Our great grandchildren will pay the price.
Sep 9, 2019 21:53:14 #
John_F wrote:
Nature has a history-proven method of correcting imbalances. In the g****l w*****g case, it is reduction of the energy consumers. Our great grandchildren will pay the price.
Pure nonsense, this planet is in need of more CO2 in her atmosphere, the more the merrier (to a certain point) for the planet, pants and foods.
Sep 10, 2019 06:03:01 #
gorgehiker
Loc: Lexington, Ky
EyeSawYou wrote:
Pure nonsense, this planet is in need of more CO2 in her atmosphere, the more the merrier (to a certain point) for the planet, pants and foods.
Please keep your CO2 out of my pants.
Sep 10, 2019 07:49:59 #
"C*****e C****e". G****l W*****g" are, in my opinion nothing more than a quest for power and the money that will follow.
Same s**m as the particles being put into the sky will block the sun's warming of the earth and we will have another ice age brought on by people - this in the early 70's.
Same s**m as the particles being put into the sky will block the sun's warming of the earth and we will have another ice age brought on by people - this in the early 70's.
Sep 10, 2019 09:46:44 #
Elaine2025
Loc: Seattle, Wa
John_F wrote:
So, lets say we do everything possible, EVERYTHING. The rest of the world is not on board, nor will it EVER be. The rest of the world would negate anything we do.
I fear this is a cause generated by the dems, nothing more.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.