Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[IBDaMann]

Mainstream scientists still maintain the fiction that methane plays any role in radiative forcing.

There is no such thing in science as a "forcing." That's just the name warmizombies give to their "miracles" that violate physics.

There is no such thing as Greenhouse Effect. No substance or body of matter can spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. Additional energy cannot be created out of nothing, per the 1st law of thermodynamics.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Joan of Snark talking about being burned at the stake, irony at its finest! Hey, Joanie can you explain the role of lone pair electrons in electrophilic and nucleophilic aromatic substitution?

No I didn't think so, all piss and wind!

 

[cancel2 2022]

There is no such thing in science as a "forcing." That's just the name warmizombies give to their "miracles" that violate physics.

There is no such thing as Greenhouse Effect. No substance or body of matter can spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. Additional energy cannot be created out of nothing, per the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Have you moulted, my formerly fine feathered friend?

 

[cancel2 2022]

It's come to something when both James Hansen, the father of gobal warming alarmism, and Michael Shellenberger agree that nuclear is the answer. After spending trillions on solar bird cookers and windmills the truth is finally emerging.

Nuclear to Replace Wind and Solar

By Norman Rogers

In the words of James Hansen, the scientist most responsible for promoting global warming, wind and solar are “grotesque” solutions for reducing CO2 emissions. Michael Shellenberger, a prominent activist, Hansen and Shellenberger, as well as many other global warming activists, have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is the only viable method of reducing CO2 emissions from the generation of electricity. Nuclear reactors don’t emit CO2. Coal and natural gas do. Hydroelectric electricity does not emit CO2 either, but opportunities for expansion are limited. In the United States most of the good sites have already been developed.

Wind and solar are grotesque because there are many problems. Promoters of wind and solar simply lie about the problems. Reducing emissions of CO2 by one metric tonne, 1000 kilograms or 2204 pounds, is called a carbon offset. Carbon offsets are bought and sold, usually for less than $10 each. If you build wind or solar plants to displace electricity from natural gas or coal plants, you will generate carbon offsets. Each carbon offset generated will cost about $60 if electricity from a coal plant is displaced. If electricity from a natural gas plant is displaced the cost per carbon offset will be about $160. Wind and solar are expensive methods of generating carbon offsets.

Wind and solar are not remotely competitive with coal or natural gas for generating electricity. The promoters of wind and solar lie about this constantly, claiming that they are close to competitive. The lies have two major components. They ignore or misrepresent the massive subsidies that wind and solar get, amounting to 75% of the cost. Then they compare the subsidized cost of wind or solar with the total cost of gas or coal. But wind or solar can’t replace existing fossil fuel infrastructure because they are erratic sources of electricity. The existing infrastructure has to be retained when you add wind or solar, because sometimes the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine. The only fair comparison to the compare to total cost of wind or solar per kilowatt hour (kWh) with the marginal cost of gas or coal electricity. That marginal cost is essentially the cost of the fuel. The only economic benefit of wind or solar is reducing fuel consumption in existing fossil fuel plants. It is hard to build wind or solar installations that generate electricity for less than 8-cents per kWh, but the cost of the fuel, for either gas or coal, is about 2-cents per kWh. Wind and solar cost four times too much to be competitive.

Wind and solar run into difficulty if they are the source of more than about 25% of the electricity in a grid. Getting to 50% generally involves adding expensive batteries, further destroying the economics and the usefulness for CO2 reduction.

The only justification for wind and solar is the reduction of CO2 emissions, but wind and soar are limited and costly for this purpose. CO2-free nuclear energy can be both economical and practical. That, clearly is the reason why prominent global warming activists are advocating nuclear, rather than wind and solar to alleviate the supposed global warming crisis.

Neither nuclear nor coal is currently cost competitive with natural gas. It’s not that nuclear or coal are so expensive as it is that natural gas, thanks to fracking, is incredibly cheap. Gas that cost more than $10 per MMBtu (million British thermal units) a decade ago, now costs less than $2. Gas-generating plants are very cheap to build and incredibly efficient. A gas plant using a combination of a gas turbine and a steam turbine can turn 65% of the energy in the gas into electricity. By contrast a coal plant struggles to reach 40%. Both coal and nuclear are handicapped by well-organized and unprincipled political opposition from the Sierra Club and similar organizations. The Sierra Club hates natural gas too, but most of their efforts go into scaring people with the imaginary danger of coal. The Sierra Club doesn’t need to expend much effort scaring people with nuclear because the nuclear industry has already been destroyed in the U.S. thanks to previous efforts of the environmental movement.

Coal and nuclear have one very important advantage over gas. They have fuel on site to continue operating if fuel deliveries are interrupted. For coal this is around 30 days, for nuclear more than a year. Some gas plants can temporarily use oil from local tanks, but in most cases that won’t last long. Gas deliveries can be interrupted by pipeline failure or sabotage. The pumping stations on natural gas pipelines are increasingly powered by electricity, rather than gas, creating a circular firing squad effect.

Nuclear electricity is a young industry with a big future. That future is materializing in Asia given the successful propaganda campaign to make people afraid of nuclear in the U.S. and in much of Europe. Nuclear fuel is extremely cheap, around four times cheaper than gas or coal. Nuclear reactors don’t have smokestacks and they don’t emit CO2. New designs will dramatically lower costs, increase safety and effectively remove most of the objections to nuclear. It is an incredible contradiction that most environmental organizations advocate wind and solar and demonize nuclear. In the future nuclear may be cost competitive with natural gas.

It is an intellectual and economic failure that the 30 U.S. states with policies designed to reduce CO2 emissions, called renewable portfolio standards, mostly explicitly exclude nuclear power as part of the plan. Instead they effectively mandate wind and solar. There are signs of reform as some states have provided support to prevent nuclear power stations from being closed.

The global warming hysteria movement is surely one of the most successful junk science campaigns ever launched. Predicting a catastrophe is a great way for a science establishment to gain fame and money. The many responsible scientists that object are attacked, if not fired. Money trumps ethics every time. The environmental movement needs looming catastrophes too, so they act as PR men for the science establishment. The tragedy is that our legislators swallow these lies and waste billions on boondoggles like wind and solar. It is ironic that increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere has a bountiful effect on plant growth, greening the Earth and increasing agricultural production. Rather than a threat, CO2 is a boon.

If you still believe in the global warming hysteria movement, you should face reality and dump wind and solar for nuclear. Wind and solar are not appropriate for the problem they are assigned to solve. Nuclear is.

Norman Rogers is the author of the book: Dumb Energy: A Critique of Wind and Solar Energy.



https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/08/nuclear_to_replace_wind_and_solar.html

 

[IBDaMann]

Have you moulted, my formerly fine feathered friend?

Brits are usually last to get the memo, owing to the fact that memos are usually written in English and that's not a language they read.

The Global Warming religion is defunct; science did a number on it and now the world's lefists are shifting their political equity into ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter.

Did you also miss the memo telling you to be on the lookout for the "ocean acidification" hoax? If so then do so.

You should also check your bulk mail for other important memos that your spam filter cast aside.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Brits are usually last to get the memo, owing to the fact that memos are usually written in English and that's not a language they read.

The Global Warming religion is defunct; science did a number on it and now the world's lefists are shifting their political equity into ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter.

Did you also miss the memo telling you to be on the lookout for the "ocean acidification" hoax? If so then do so.

You should also check your bulk mail for other important memos that your spam filter cast aside.

I am a lukewarmer, I doubt that the warming in the future will be extreme and far more likely to be the RCP 2.6 scenario outlined by the IPCC in AR5

 

[IBDaMann]

I am a lukewarmer, I doubt that the warming in the future will be extreme and far more likely to be the RCP 2.6 scenario outlined by the IPCC in AR5

First of all, the IPCC is a religious "headquarters" ... like the Vatican. Why should any rational adult believe that particular religious clergy?

Second, why do you believe there is any increase in earth's average global temperature in the first place? One has to deny science and believe in physics violations in order to believe that any body of matter, e.g. the earth, can somehow spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. Do you just not like science? Did you have a bad science experience in your youth?

 

[IBDaMann]

The real question is: Why should anyone read an idiot who asks "Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?" like it's a religion and not an actual current event.

Hey coward, have you been able to find a good reason a rational adult should believe in the Global Warming religion? It doesn't look like you have. Don't worry, there's a good reason for that.

I, on the other hand, have found quite a few reasons rational adults should learn science. One of them is to be able to recognize WACKY religions when they are right in front of them.

You never did say what worthless major you pursued before you dropped out of school. Appreciation of Early Egyptian Literature? Culinary sciences of the proto-Nebra?

Total loser.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Oh darn. Sucks to be you today. Tomorrow, too. lol

This message is hidden because IBDaMann is on your ignore list.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

There are many religions in our world and they are all different. Each one has a unique dogma that affords comfort to the believer and helps him cope with a chaotic and confusing world ... each one except for Global Warming that is. This religion seems only to instill fear and panic. Most religions are portrayed as a form of "good news" to be celebrated whereas everything about Global Warming is hyped as "bad news" that might already be "too late" and "past the tipping point."

Further, most religions are honest matters of faith whereas the Church of Global Warming specifically targets for recruitment the gullible and the scientifically illiterate because its dogma mandates the belief that egregious violations of physics are "Settled Science."

Question: why would any rational adult adopt the Global Warming faith?

You-B-DA-FOOL!

NICE!

 

[IBDaMann]

You-B-DA-FOOL!

NICE!

I understand. STEM isn't for everyone and less for women specifically.

While we're on the topic, why do you believe that the earth can spontaneously increase in temperature without any additional energy? Do you think it sounds "mystical" or what not? ... or were you simply told to believe and to shut up with any questions?

 

[IBDaMann]

This message is hidden because IBDaMann is on your ignore list.

Too funny! I keep thinking of your lame attempt to convince me that you went to school and learned something. You might have shown up for a few classes but quickly fled when the professor presented some ideas.

When other students asked you why you were cowering under your desk, did you tell them that you were practicing for the "drop" drill?

 

[Bill]

Of course!
It's impossible to break thru the minds of the Trump ,Stepford Cult

Well that is true, the cure is coming in November I heard..


It will be time for the back paddle Olympics.........

 

[cancel2 2022]

First of all, the IPCC is a religious "headquarters" ... like the Vatican. Why should any rational adult believe that particular religious clergy?

Second, why do you believe there is any increase in earth's average global temperature in the first place? One has to deny science and believe in physics violations in order to believe that any body of matter, e.g. the earth, can somehow spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. Do you just not like science? Did you have a bad science experience in your youth?

I've had this discussion on numerous occasions and I don't care to keep repeating them!

 

[cancel2 2022]

Brits are usually last to get the memo, owing to the fact that memos are usually written in English and that's not a language they read.

The Global Warming religion is defunct; science did a number on it and now the world's lefists are shifting their political equity into ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter.

Did you also miss the memo telling you to be on the lookout for the "ocean acidification" hoax? If so then do so.

You should also check your bulk mail for other important memos that your spam filter cast aside.

I can see that your a fan of that raving lunatic Joseph Potsma. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to net flows of heat, not to each individual photon, and it does not prevent some heat flowing from a cooler body to a warm one.

 

[IBDaMann]

I've had this discussion on numerous occasions and I don't care to keep repeating them!

Great. Don't discuss. Would you mind just jotting down a few words that answer my questions?

Why should any rational adult believe that particular religious clergy? You obviously had to have some reason for believing the dogma. What was it?

Second, why do you believe there is any increase in earth's average global temperature in the first place? Does the world just feel warmer to you? Do you believe all those fabricated heat charts? What?

I promise to take you on your word.

 

[IBDaMann]

I can see that your a fan of that raving lunatic Joseph Potsma.

Who is Joseph Potsma?

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to net flows of heat, not to each individual photon, and it does not prevent some heat flowing from a cooler body to a warm one.

How about we presume that I'm not interested in your quack gibber-babble. I know the laws of thermodynamics and you obviously don't. In fact, you are clearly scientifically illiterate.

All I am asking is why you believe that matter can somehow spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. It's a simple question.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Question: According to the warmizombie playbook, what is the final act of desperation signalling the tipping of the king?
Answer: Attempt a desperate accusation of being a "sock."

So now that you've made your "sock" accusation, explain what I would somehow be able to express as a sock that I am otherwise not able to express?

Too funny.

You're done.

Are you agreeing that Sock Puppeteers are lowlife scumbags of low IQ, near zero personality and are most likely mentally ill? Maybe retarded?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Well that is true, the cure is coming in November I heard..

It will be time for the back paddle Olympics.........

There will also be a lot of claims the election was rigged and some, like Matt and his friends, have threatened to leave the country.

 

[IBDaMann]

Are you agreeing that Sock Puppeteers are lowlife scumbags of low IQ, near zero personality and are most likely mentally ill? Maybe retarded?

I can't say. I don't know of any. The one thing I can say for sure is that people who accuse others of being "socks" are almost always lowlife scumbags of low IQ, near zero personality and are most likely mentally ill, even retarded. Such people are great because they help me zero-in on the most cowardly, most paranoid leftists and allow me to have a field day driving them back into their safe spaces.

I am hoping that someone can explain to me what benefit I could leverage by adopting a sock. Can you? Is "sock" a particular user setting that enables one to express things that would otherwise not be able to be expressed if the setting is turned off? ThatOwlCoward claimed that I am a particular sock "Stephen." Is that a sock setting? She made an accusation out of it like one midget claiming another midget is wearing risers. Otherwise it seems like an awful lot of effort just to EVADE my post.

I assure you, if you'll explain to me why I would want a sock, I'll make one in your honor.