What lack? 80% of France's electricity is made at nuclear power plants. Where I live, the vast majority of our power is hydroelectric.
It was from humans. Do you deny this or not?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The lack of power plants running producing power from water or nuclear fusion.
But it wasn't from Global Warming, now was it? Same with the bison.
No, it isn't.
Could you get back to the topic? Actually, I think Dr. Bubbalove gave the conclusion of the thread, so I'm pretty much done here.
If I didn't believe in global warming, you might have a point, but I do believe in global warming, as I have stated numerous times in this thread, which you either fail to read or ignore. This makes me think that, when you read, you gloss over what you disagree with and therefore, your interpretations are incorrect.
I believe that the earth warms and cools globally, and I don't think mankind is the primary cause of it.
You, on the other hand, disbelieve an event that is chronicled in many cultures, while believing in one which is strictly a matter of opinion-two people can look at the same data and come to different conclusions.
No, you are looking at it incorrectly. Recall that I stated that climate science incorporates numerous disciplines within itself. The 66.4 percent of climate science did not address AGW in their research. It addressed aspects of climate, especially paleoclimatology.See? That's how data gets misrepresented. The bolded expresses your agenda. The below, which is directly copied and pasted, does not:
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
So the way it reads to me, 32.6% express AGW. 66.4% do not.
What % is France of the world? In the US, we haven't had a nuclear plant built in many, many years. And we haven't built a dam in years, either. It's those danged environmentalists who are interfering with the global warming scientists!What lack? 80% of France's electricity is made at nuclear power plants. Where I live, the vast majority of our power is hydroelectric.
Maybe part of the evolutionary cycle?It was from humans. Do you deny this or not?
Back at you. You have no facts that humanity is the cause of global warming....You continue to make stuff up, and it is demonstrated by your inability to back any of it up with facts.
No more than other species.You accept that humans are increasing global temperatures?
No, when you talk about global warming, you're talking about something that happens whether we exist or not. When you claim that mankind is the primary cause of global warming, it's a different thing altogether.You just contradicted yourself. When we talk about global warming, we are talking about anthropogenic global warming, and you know it. All you are doing is playing childish words games.
If it were true, and I thought we could do something about it, I wouldn't have any problem with it. But don't you see how this works? You can't prove that I wouldn't change my ways if I thought it would help the environment, and you can't prove that mankind is the primary cause of global warming.The reason that you don't accept AGW is because you don't want it to be true. You can't bring any facts to the discussion, only denial.
And many of us believe that mankind causing global warming is a modern myth.Myths aren't data. Never have been.
97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” | Climate Change DispatchNo, you are looking at it incorrectly. Recall that I stated that climate science incorporates numerous disciplines within itself. The 66.4 percent of climate science did not address AGW in their research. It addressed aspects of climate, especially paleoclimatology.
Understand that the climate research that addresses AGW is what we are looking at. Of all climate research that addresses AGW 97% + shows the earth to be warming due to increased CO2 and that additional CO2 is shown to be attributed to fossil fuels.
I'll be quite happy to provide that information.Back at you. You have no facts that humanity is the cause of global warming....
The source makes the same erroneous claim that I described in my previous post discussing it. The 66% is not used because it does not address AGW at all, thus they neither agree or disagree. Please understand the context of the 97% consensus. "Of those papers that address AGW, 97% agree that the current warming trend from the beginning of the industrial revolution is due to fossil fuels". The reason those papers are even mentioned is because they are part of the group sourced to include as much published climate research as possible.
Did you read any of them?The source makes the same erroneous claim that I described in my previous post discussing it. The 66% is not used because it does not address AGW at all, thus they neither agree or disagree. Please understand the context of the 97% consensus. "Of those papers that address AGW, 97% agree that the current warming trend from the beginning of the industrial revolution is due to fossil fuels". The reason those papers are even mentioned is because they are part of the group sourced to include as much published climate research as possible.
What % is France of the world?
In the US, we haven't had a nuclear plant built in many, many years. And we haven't built a dam in years, either. It's those danged environmentalists who are interfering with the global warming scientists!
Maybe part of the evolutionary cycle?
Did you read any of them?
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
It requires building the plants and delivery systems. But what makes you think you're not just selling the problem down the road? We don't know how to get rid of nuclear waste.If nuclear power can supply electricity for 80% of France, it can supply the same percentage to any country.
But not global warming. Killing a limited population of an animal on an island is a lot different.That screeching sound you hear is you moving the goal posts.
It requires building the plants and delivery systems. But what makes you think you're not just selling the problem down the road? We don't know how to get rid of nuclear waste.
But not global warming. Killing a limited population of an animal on an island is a lot different.
The source you provided is an AGW skeptic opinion. The fact is my source (Cook, 2013) plus the others I included in a previous post are all peer reviewed papers published in mainstream science journals, showing that of the published peered review research that addresses AGW agrees with is 97% plus.Did you read any of them?
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
The difference is that they're already there, for the most part. It takes a very long time to get a nuclear power plant built.Coal plants don't require buildings or delivery systems?
Not that hard, very scientific answer....what about gasoline powered cars that produce near zero emissions? If the technology is there for autos, it's there for power plants, too...On top of that, the newest nuclear power tech produces 1/10th the waste of older reactors. It isn't that hard to get rid of the waste.
No, that's not what I was saying. I said they cannot. Quite different.You claimed that nuclear and hydroelectric could not produce enough energy to replace fossil fuels. That is plainly false.
The difference is that they're already there, for the most part.
what about gasoline powered cars that produce near zero emissions?
No, that's not what I was saying. I said they cannot. Quite different.
What about them? How is the CO2 sequestered? Why not use a system that doesn't produce CO2 to begin with?
Who cares? All we have to do is spray aluminum particles into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back out into space (and then we get to inhale the particles of aluminum into our bodies), and all will be well! Nanosized aluminum being sprayed in the atmosphere, causing degenerative disease, says neurosurgeon
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?