The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

S0 addressed the micronova:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH0G7ntkMaQ

:

human heartbeat 10^6 ergs
solar flare: electromagnetic storm 10^26 to 10^32 ergs
super flare: electrical catastrophe 10^32 to 10^40 ergs
micronova: extinction potential 10^34 to 10-40^ ergs
nova: planet destroyed 10^40 ergs
super nova: star destroyed 10-43^ ergs
hyper nova 10^50 ergs
"big bang" 10^75 ergs

The difference between a superflare and a micro-nova is the former is electrical and the latter adds mass material. I guess mega-CME isn't a thing.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Goods and services provided by the environment,by some calculations,have been valued at $33-trillion/year.
As fossil-fuel combustion eats into these goods and services,it's only proper that the fossil-fuel combustion industry compensate the good people of planet Earth for their loss(es).
As the cost of doing business always translates into price,depending upon the degree of insult attributed to combustion,the price of fuel should mirror losses,potentially in the $trillions a year.
Should these externalities be reflected in consumer prices, we may find that fossil fuels represent the most expensive form of energy ever conceived by man.
You might already be paying $millions a year for fossil energy.You just haven't been presented with the invoice.
That being the case,zero-carbon,renewable energy begins to look like the greatest energy bargain ever conceived by man.
Yep,it's the KOOL-AID.

I doubt it.
And if I did, then I want to see the results good or bad.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

It is weather when it is hot or cold - in one place, at any one time.

So, why did you make such a silly argument?

Are you willing to pay FAR more for ignoring climate change?

I would wager against it.
Go broke now or possibly pay for the damages later on.
According to the believers we would go broke paying for it now and still have to pay for it later on.
I'm good with only maybe having to pay for it later on.

[redneck]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

There is no debate, here. There is data and science, and there are people who think that their denial is an argument against facts.

Of coarse there’s no debate. As far as the believers are concerned...

The Science is settled...

End of story...

Can’t question their scientific methods and or results.
( they’re above and beyond reproach)


Yeah, that’s not how it works...

Anthony Watts is a shill.

So everyone that doesn’t tow the line or disagrees with any of your “beliefs” is a shill ?

It would seem so since you have said similar things many times before.

What if I said ...

Potholer54 is a shill.


I mean I don’t know, he could be. I don’t have any evidence.

But that doesn’t matter, right ?





>

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

yeah,they're real losers.Build hydroelectric dam in the 1930s,which are still producing power today.A real socialist tragedy.

I never said hydropower was a bad thing.
You are just putting up strawmen where none exist.
But the time to build them was in the 1920s through WWII.
Hydro power is the only really large scale power generation that can cover the base load and is reliable.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Anthony Watts is a shill.

When I switched to 100% renewable electricity - I saved about 4%. So, he is wrong on this, too.

That's what happens when the government does it.
I know you can spend your money better than our incompetent government can. Do you hire people who go 400% over budget and take twice as long as they said it would, just because you owe them a favor?
I know I'm going to save huge amounts of money when I put in my own solar panels.

Compairson between a solar system that you or I would build to what the government or utility would build isn't fair.
We own the place where the solar panels are going to go. The structure that the panels go on already exists and the site is already connected to the power grid. 95% of the AC electrical to tie it on the grid is already in place.
The power that you or I would generate likely wouldn't travel more than 1km.
Taxes on the system are negligible or fly under the radar in most places.

When the government does it they have to buy or lease the land. They have to build what the panels are going to sit on. They usually have to run power lines out to the site, which requires more land leasing and right of ways. Then once the power lines get to the solar site they need their own sub station. Then that power needs to be transmitted some distance to market so there are losses associated with that.
Then they have to hire people to actively maintain it.
Running the power out to the solar site and building the sub station can easily make up most of the budget for a solar build.

[freebeard]

The Science is settled...

End of story...
....
What if I said ...

Potholer54 is a shill.

I mean I don’t know, he could be. I don’t have any evidence.

He's been going round and round with Steven Crowder. You could look into that.

Settled science is not real science. There's no part of science that if you look at it closely enough, doesn't raise unsettling questions.

[redneck]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Settled science is not real science. There's no part of science that if you look at it closely enough, doesn't raise unsettling questions.

Agreed...



>

[oil pan 4]

I got one that will make the belivers pee fire for sure.

As an example; Global Warming as a Manifestation of a Random Walk

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10....O%3E2.0.CO%3B2

It only makes more sense than all their failed predictions and is more plausible than pretending to understand everything.

[aerostealth]

https://newatlas.com/iridium-electric-motorhome/58270/

An electric motor home capable of 57.5 mpg e or 569 watt hours per mile.