On Apr 16, 2021 at 8:25:29 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.
Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence (if
they did not they would not be the experts!)
Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
recent less than predicted rate of world temperature change.
Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was less even as the
world beat the predictions?
Nope, the world as a whole didnt beat predictions.
Would love to see the peer reviewed research you are referring to.
You're the one that needs to provide that
given you claim it exceeded predictions.
You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites. OK. That is
what I figured.
Usually when I hear people speak of this type stuff they mean this
debunked info:
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/n...-isnt-cooling/
But happy to see what you have.
See above.
I did.
You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites. Again, that is
what I figured.
At this point there is no internationally recognized scientific
group that still denies the evidence.
Science isnt about voting. At one time the vast majority of
scientists denied free radicals but then the evidence showed that
they are real.
If the evidence showed it then over time the view of most scientists
likely changed. It is not like our knowledge does not grow.
And thats just as true of purported man made climate change.
Yes, we keep leaning more.
And we are finding that we cant predict what the world climate will do.
Not with exact specificity but we have very good models.
Bull**** we do prediction wise.
The evidence is contrary to your claim.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/s...ections-right/
Thats bull****. They arent in fact doing anything of the sort.
A claim you make with no support. OK.
Where are you hearing otherwise?
Observing that the predictions are way off.
But you have no evidence of this. Fair enough.
Its obvious that climate does change, thats obvious from the ice ages
etc, but its much less clear how much of the change we have seen is man
made.
The models show it to be between about 95% and 105% if I recall
correctly.
Thats bull**** and the models clearly dont predict what actually
happened, so the models are clearly a long way from being useful.
Again: source?
Again, you are the one that needs to provide the source.
I have no source to back your claims. Nor do you. Fair enough.
This says 110%... but I have seen a few percent above and below:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-judith-curry/
Thats bull****.
You do not believe the evidence. OK.
So, yes, there is some disagreement.
And they are hopeless at predicting what will happen. .
The evidence says otherwise.
Bull**** it does with the last decade.
You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites. OK. That is
what I figured.
It wasnt that long ago that most scientists were hyperventilating
about global cooling.
"Never" was neither long ago nor not long ago. It did not happen.
Bull****. Same with the mindless hyperventilation about world population.
Of course you have a source, right?
You dont have one yourself.
I have peer reviewed research and every single internationally recognized
scientific group with a stance in the topic. You have denial and no evidence.
Most times people refer to a single Times story... and it was not even
accurate.
https://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/cr...h-and-galileo/
More bull****.
You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites. OK. That is
what I figured.
Yes, we can certainly measure a substantial hike in atmospheric
CO2 levels, but its much less clear how much effect that actually
has on world temperatures, let alone climate change.
We can quibble over exact amounts but there is no question it accounts
for a huge percentage of the warming we see.
Thats mindless bull**** too. We havent in fact seen anything
even remotely like the same effect on world climate as we
have measured in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Again: source?
Dont need one with such a dramatic difference.
You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites. OK. That is
what I figured.
And its even less clear whether lots more 'renewable' energy
will make any useful difference to world climate or whether
it makes much more sense to have lots more nukes and
dramatically reduce the addition to world CO2 levels and
stop wasting fossil fuels on power generation now that it
is clear that we are consuming them at a far greater rate
than they are being laid down.
Solar is not perfect but it is a lot less harmful.
Nukes arent harmful.
I assume you mean nuclear power.
Yep.
It is an option --
It is in fact the only viable approach if you believe
that atmospheric CO2 levels are a problem.
Welcome you to show your support for this.
but we do not have a good way to deal with the fallout. I mean the spent
rods.
We have always had a good way to deal with
those, reprocess them into new nuke fuel.
The only reason we dont do that at the moment is
because its cheaper to dig up more uranium etc.
Would love to see your evidence.
The current plan of burying them in the most seismically active mountain
range is pretty daft.
Yes, it makes no sense to bury them anywhere.
It makes lots of sense to reprocess them into
new nuke fuel once that is cheaper than digging
up more uranium. **** all of the original fuel rod
is actually consumed.
Great. Look forward to you evidence.
And look at Russia and Japan for the issues it can cause.
Nothing like that happened in France and Germany or the USA.
Nor did I suggest it had... but seems you missed the point.
So do nukes that way instead of ****ing up like both those have
done. The west has never been stupid enough to do nukes the
way that russia has, or stupid enough to put the backup generators
where they can be flooded by a tsunami like the stupid japs did.
But it is true no solution is without risk. Even solar has risks with the
building.
And the massive downside of not being useful at high
latitudes and for a large chunk of every day even at
low latitudes.
Batteries exist.
Nukes work fine in both situations and
in fact the waste heat is useful at high latitudes.
Open to your support of them as the best solution.
And solar ****s power distribution and isnt useful at higher latitudes
and is ****ed in the
sense that its only useful for part of the day even at the lower
latitudes.
That is complete and utter nonsense.
Bull**** it is.
Look at Germany.
Which was actually stupid enough to shut
down perfectly viable nukes and replace
them with burning by far the dirtiest coal
available and which has by far the most
expensive electricity around, because
they have been that stupid.
I am speaking of their solar, which they have plenty of, even though they get
far less sun.
Please try to use evidence.
That is the evidence that solar is ****ed compared with nukes.
If so then you should be able to show it.
But your record is weak on that front.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.