Snit wrote
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.
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.
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.
Easy to claim.
reams of your troll**** flushed where it belongs
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.
Just did.
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 evidence is those keeping them, ****wit.
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.
There is a wealth of evidence that ****
all of the original fuel rod is consumed.
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.
You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.
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.
But are a stupid added cost and dont last long.
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.
Already did that, ****wit.
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.
And that produces the most expensive electricity
in western europe. France leaves them for dead.
reams of your troll**** flushed where it belongs