Climate Alarmism

[_Water Dog]

Perhaps a patch of missing hair and a big scar, a lasting reminder of some incident that resulted in irreparable brain damage. You are a hoot, man.

God help us all! Explain how my comment "That is just your opinion, not science. Science doesn't tell us how to solve the climate change crisis. But hey, thanks for letting us know your close minded politics" is stupid? It's the truth man! I don't identify with any political party or ideology, I simply think for myself. You have an agenda! You were born in a strong conservative and Mormon family.

Not us all, DT, just you. Got help you, brother.

You want me to unpack all the stupid in your comment? Okay. Three sentences rolled out of your noggin.

That is just your opinion, not science.

Wrong. Power engineering is not my opinion, it is very much science.

Science doesn't tell us how to solve the climate change crisis.

One, there is no crisis. Two, then what the hell is the IPCC? You seem to not realize you just contradicted yourself and virtually everything you've been saying in all these threads. Haha. If science cannot offer solutions to so-called crisis, WTF are we talking about? The IPCC very much claims, based on science, to offer a solution. My comment, which you responded to, was in response to discussion that we would do well to follow the IPCCs recommendations regardless of whether the doom predictions are accurate or not.

DT, if we were passing a ball around, you couldn't even tell me what color it is.

But hey, thanks for letting us know your close minded politics.

Huh? Perhaps you can explain this one for me. I don't have a clue what this is supposed to mean and how it fits in the context of the discussion you were chiming in on. I had literally just explained my being OPEN, which is the opposite of CLOSED, to enacting certain types of measures to reduce carbon emissions. Haha.

[_Water Dog]

I love how Dog does science. I can imagine a scenario in which he tests his conclusion above by sticking his head into a bag while standing next to a wind turbine, and upon recovering from the inevitable fainting, will conclude that the wind turbine was at fault.

I would love to have you walk me through the mental thought process that led to this comment.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Wrong. Power engineering is not my opinion, it is very much science.

Oh my God! How is power engineering related to "Economically, renewables are a disaster. That's the bottom line truth. They cannot support the economy as it exists."? And there are economists that disagree with you!

One, there is no crisis. Two, then what the hell is the IPCC? You seem to not realize you just contradicted yourself and virtually everything you've been saying in all these threads. Haha. If science cannot offer solutions to so-called crisis, WTF are we talking about? The IPCC very much claims, based on science, to offer a solution

Science doesn't tell us what is the best way to reduce CO2 emissions. I can think of many solutions that don't require renewable energy, such as underground injections, but that would be an economics debate, not a scientific debate.

It is clear you don't know what the Hell you are talking about man! The problem is that you don't listen!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0

Huh? Perhaps you can explain this one for me. I don't have a clue what this is supposed to mean and how it fits in the context of the discussion you were chiming in on. I had literally just explained my being OPEN, which is the opposite of CLOSED, to enacting certain types of measures to reduce carbon emissions. Haha.

Open? Okay good! So no more economics and politics okay! Let's just stay focus on the science.

[_Water Dog]

Oh my God! How is power engineering related to "Economically, renewables are a disaster. That's the bottom line truth. They cannot support the economy as it exists."? And there are economists that disagree with you!

Saving this.

[Guest]

Oh my God! How is power engineering related to "Economically, renewables are a disaster. That's the bottom line truth. They cannot support the economy as it exists."? And there are economists that disagree with you!

Saving this.

Yes please! So you can't tell the difference between science, engineering, and economics?
And save the entire post!

One, there is no crisis. Two, then what the hell is the IPCC? You seem to not realize you just contradicted yourself and virtually everything you've been saying in all these threads. Haha. If science cannot offer solutions to so-called crisis, WTF are we talking about? The IPCC very much claims, based on science, to offer a solution

Science doesn't tell us what is the best way to reduce CO2 emissions. I can think of many solutions that don't require renewable energy, such as underground injections, but that would be an economics debate, not a scientific debate.

It is clear you don't know what the Hell you are talking about man! The problem is that you don't listen!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0

Huh? Perhaps you can explain this one for me. I don't have a clue what this is supposed to mean and how it fits in the context of the discussion you were chiming in on. I had literally just explained my being OPEN, which is the opposite of CLOSED, to enacting certain types of measures to reduce carbon emissions. Haha.

Open? Okay good! So no more economics and politics okay! Let's just stay focus on the science.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Can someone please explain to WaterDog what is the difference between economics and power engineering?

[_DoubtingThomas]

Jesus Christ I give up! I am done! For WaterDog economics, engineering, and science are the same thing! How sad!

[_Water Dog]

Yes please! It is hilarious you can't tell the difference between science, engineering, and economics. And save the entire post you!

How is power engineering related to methods of power generation? Haha. DT, do you hear voices? Do you have a hard time separating those voices? Do those competing words get jumbled together, and that's the cause of your incoherence? Do you have a gofundme page that I can contribute to?

[Guest]

How is power engineering related to methods of power generation? Haha. DT, do you hear voices? Do you have a hard time separating those voices? Do those competing words get jumbled together, and that's the cause of your incoherence? Do you have a gofundme page that I can contribute to?

No, you are just a poor guy that doesn't understand anything.

Power engineering and economics are not the same thing okay! You told me "Economically, renewables are a disaster".
So do you want to talk about engineering or economics? Which one?

[_Chap]

Science has not been able to answer the question of how CO2 affects the environment. But science has been able to answer the question of how wind turbines affect it. Between the two, it is only the wind turbines which have been conclusively shown to be harmful.

I love this.

Despite the overwhelming consensus amongst scientists with relevant skills that Arrhenius was right about the greenhouse forcing effect of atmospheric CO2, Water Dog can magic that away by an assertion that 'science has not been able to answer the question'.

But when he can find some science that he likes, the science is conclusive that wind turbines are 'harmful'.

Please could Water Dog remind us again of how he is qualified to speak on these matters with such magisterial - almost Papal - authority? I mean, when he posts, the thinking has been done, hasn't it?

You think Arrhenius, in the 1890s, conclusively proved catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? No wonder you are confused.

Nope. I pointed out that there is currently an 'overwhelming consensus amongst scientists with relevant skills that Arrhenius was right about the greenhouse forcing effect of atmospheric CO2'. He made his proposal in 1897, and nobody would say that he then 'conclusively proved catastrophic anthropogenic global warming' Science doesn't work like that.

But nowadays, the accumulation of evidence and the increasing sophistication of the analytical tools available has made it clear to the vast majority of those qualified to judge that Arrhenius was right, and that anthropogenic global warming is taking place as a result of the basic processes he described.