-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That's appeal to authority
Climate change is real
Posts
Total:
263
-->
@Best.Korea
There are plenty of reasons to replace coal. Global warming is just one of many reasons.
It is the only global reason. Without that claim coal burning (and all subsequent particulates) become a local and temporary decision which is useless for gaining political power.
-->
@Vegasgiants
The best argument from who?
Doesn't matter, as I was just explaining to TWS in the other thread.
You do your own climate science?
I do my own scientific reasoning and anyone who can't or won't has no business pretending to debate it.
I don't collect huge data sets, but disagreements rarely come down to datasets as repeatability is a hard expectation to dodge for even the most unscrupulous 'scientist'.
That's appeal to authority
No, it's pointing out that even within the ultimately useless framework of credibility the claims of consensus are false.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The local reasons apply to all areas.
Coal:
1. Pollution of air
2. Lower energy output
3. More expensive
4. More labor-intensive
5. Harm at workplace
6. Limited amount of coal left
Nuclear energy wins in all areas against coal. So really, urging nations to abandon coal is not just because of global warming.
We are seeing harmful effects of global warming. However, that is just one problem coal has.
Denying global warming wont save coal.
-->
@Best.Korea
2. Lower energy output
What does that even mean? To be "lower" there must be something to compare it to.
Coal is coal, there is no other way to use it.
Nuclear energy wins in all areas against coal. So really, urging nations to abandon coal is not just because of global warming.
Nuclear energy is the future, but that is no reason to not use coal. It's a reason to improve nuclear technology. When nuclear is better overall you won't have to ban coal, people will stop using it out of rational self-interest.
It also doesn't help that uranium is kept away from many nations so those nations see only energy slavery in using it.
Denying global warming wont save coal
rejecting coal won't change global warming
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I agree that denying nuclear energy is whats ruining the success.
From what I have seen from research, the only suistainable realistic energy is nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy has largest electricity output.
Nuclear energy doesnt pollute, except in accidents.
Nuclear energy uses much less workforce. The starting investment is costly, but over time it greatly pays off.
Solar panels are made mostly in China. They will make China rich if demand greatly increases.
Solar panels, wind plants... produce too little energy.
One person realistically needs 10 solar panels. So thats 80 billion solar panels for entire Earth.
Then there is also production facilities which consume more electricity than households.
Humanity cannot produce enough solar panels.
I dont even need to say that hydro plants are a disaster for nature, maybe bigger disaster than coal.
-->
@Best.Korea
I dont even need to say that hydro plants are a disaster for nature, maybe bigger disaster than coal.
That's comparing two not very big disasters.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
But you believe the analysis done by other scientists. You have not examined all the data and let's not pretend you have
-->
@Vegasgiants
But you believe the analysis done by other scientists.
I would have believed in this one if doubts were not raised and then experiencing nearly a decade straight of nobody regardless of claimed education being able to maintain the argument against counter-arguments.
You have not examined all the data and let's not pretend you have.
I hardly need to pretend. Data isn't magic mana, it can be used in specific ways in specific arguments.
If I sat down and memorized 8000 points in a table on ice core data for a few years I might know it better than the people who took the data but that would not mean I was an infallible god (or science incarnate as Fauci achieved).
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I see. Then you must believe there is an international conspiracy of almost 200 scientific agencies
-->
@Vegasgiants
There have been bigger conspiracies, they're called religions.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Wow an international conspiracy involving every country on earth!!!!!
Holy cow. Lol
-->
@Vegasgiants
Everyone needs that religion itch scratched. Doesn't matter the name of the flower. Herd mentality is an inherited and increasingly vestigial trait.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
rejecting coal won't change global warming
Would it surprise you to know people in Africa that are denied coal will resort to burning manure?
While those silly Europeans will accept killing 100k people in the winter and 60k in the summer due to energy shortages, the same energy shortages in Africa would mean millions of seasonal deaths. Pretty sure Africa isn't going to bow down to the green energy cult when that much death is at the immediate door.
-->
@Greyparrot
No, it would not surprise me.
-->
@Greyparrot
Yep. Thank God I'm not part of the we actually landed on the moon religion. Lol
-->
@Greyparrot
Can nuclear energy replace coal?
-->
@Vegasgiants
Religion is more than just a widely believed claim. It has a pattern of providing spiritual nourishment, being a nexus of a value system, and while it may shallowly claim to be rational it responds to questions and criticisms by appealing to authority.Yep. Thank God I'm not part of the we actually landed on the moon religion. Lol
Believing in the moon landings is starkly different from believing carbon dioxide is warming the planet, when someone denies the moon landings people don't say "just ask NASA you nub", they make arguments.
-->
@Vegasgiants
Thank God I'm not part of the we actually landed on the moon religion. Lol
Wait! We didn't land on the moon?
-->
@Best.Korea
No, because the cartel of nuclear nations won't allow proliferation. So no nuclear for Africa to replace coal.
-->
@DavidAZ
It's a conspiracy!!!!!!! Lol
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Nasa has some pretty strong arguments for AGW
They must be in on the conspiracy!!!!! Lol
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Interestingly, the "science cartel" still uses the term "greenhouse effect" even though the warming correlation is nothing like an actual greenhouse.
-->
@Greyparrot
As they should
-->
@Vegasgiants
Nasa has some pretty strong arguments for AGW
Incredible that after nearly a decade no one has used one of them when I challenged them to support the assertion.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The mere fact of the title of the OP proves the ridiculousness. It's "climate change" now, not "global warming"
Wonder why the OP used that term?
-->
@Vegasgiants
As they should
Not according to my posted video.
-->
@Greyparrot
Oooooooh. A youtube video. Lol
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Would you like me to show you them?
-->
@Vegasgiants
Better than shakeing a bible in a church.