I repeat,
The science is settled
No-one knows anything about how this virus started, how it really spreads, or how to stop it.
Otherwise it would be sorted by now.
Sound familiar, scientists that drive the climate hysteria are also settled.
What a crock, admit the lack of true, conclusive evidence on both issues.
Do it now, because your going to look more foolish later!
Select to expand quotePoida said..
FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt): A disinformation strategy used to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information and a manifestation of the appeal to fear.
You know I read that and immediately associated it with climate alarmists, especially the fear and disinformation strategy. Cut's both way I guess.
As for the response, that is not a coherent reponse to the film. It's an advertisement for Tesla, written by someone who works for Tesla. The further I read the more it just sounded like a "yeah but Telsa are making some really great stuff that will prove all this wrong, it will be out soon"
I've already agreed Mann cherry picked the worst examples, and this highlights that too, but the points are still valid even if some aspects are a little better than what he imparts. Still a big issue.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Poida said..
FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt): A disinformation strategy used to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information and a manifestation of the appeal to fear.
You know I read that and immediately associated it with climate alarmists, especially the fear and disinformation strategy. Cut's both way I guess.
only if you're an idiot.
Select to expand quotelog man said..Paradox said..Poida said..
FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt): A disinformation strategy used to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information and a manifestation of the appeal to fear.
You know I read that and immediately associated it with climate alarmists, especially the fear and disinformation strategy. Cut's both way I guess.
only if you're an idiot.
Cuts both ways for you then Loggy!
you know that re posting things multiple time doesn't make us think it is any better the second time. It shows you are trying to spread the gospel of deniers.
It just reinforces your circular bias.
Select to expand quote
Just did a quick calculation on this guys claim a 100 x 100 mile of modern PV will power the US with some to spare. To understand the size of that, it is 26,000 square kilometers. 10x the size of the ACT. The number of panels required for that is mind boggling....not to mention the effect on the ecosystem under all those panels - which would have to be complete coverage, no gaps...
So using first principles if you could convert the suns maximum energy irradiance on that area (1kw/m2 with sun directly overhead, clear skies) for 6 hours a day every day for a year, it would equal the total current power generation of the US at 4500 billion kwh.
Thats 100% conversion effeciency of peak sun energy... I don't know what Tesla are bringing out but If its a 100% efficient panel (or any other type of energy transfer) they are about to rule the world. Even then you have to then store most of the energy generated for 18 hours a day....
And he accuses Moore of cherry picking/exaggerating.
To break that down into reality, current best PV efficiency is 23%, so that instantly increases the area needed by 430%. Now we have 112,000sqkm. Plus at best you might get a 50% panel to area efficiency. So thats 224,000sqkm.
Now we have a solar farm the size of Arizona or Nevada states, and we are still assuming max sun energy. No allowance for the latitude or winter months or storage inefficiencies. And we have to manufacture and replace these things every 20 years and dispose of the waste.
These are not low impact solutions. The energy is renewable, the power capture systems are not.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..
Just did a quick calculation on this guys claim a 100 x 100 mile of modern PV will power the US with some to spare. To understand the size of that, it is 26,000 square kilometers. 10x the size of the ACT. The number of panels required for that is mind boggling....not to mention the effect on the ecosystem under all those panels - which would have to be complete coverage, no gaps...
So using first principles if you could convert the suns maximum energy irradiance on that area (1kw/m2 with sun directly overhead, clear skies) for 6 hours a day every day for a year, it would equal the total current power generation of the US at 4500 billion kwh.
Thats 100% conversion effeciency of peak sun energy... I don't know what Tesla are bringing out but If its a 100% efficient panel (or any other type of energy transfer) they are about to rule the world. Even then you have to then store most of the energy generated for 18 hours a day....
And he accuses Moore of cherry picking/exaggerating.
To break that down into reality, current best PV efficiency is 23%, so that instantly increases the area needed by 430%. Now we have 112,000sqkm. Plus at best you might get a 50% panel to area efficiency. So thats 224,000sqkm.
Now we have a solar farm the size of Arizona or Nevada states, and we are still assuming max sun energy. No allowance for the latitude or winter months or storage inefficiencies. And we have to manufacture and replace these things every 20 years and dispose of the waste.
These are not low impact solutions. The energy is renewable, the power capture systems are not.
you just have to think outside of the square sometimes. What if each house and building roof area was able to be a PV? How many square km in the US of roof area multiplied by efficiencies etc etc. Then add in tidal, wind and old mate fossil.
Select to expand quotePoida said..
you just have to think outside of the square sometimes. What if each house and building roof area was able to be a PV? How many square km in the US of roof area multiplied by efficiencies etc etc. Then add in tidal, wind and old mate fossil.
I have no issue with Solar PV itself (or any other alternative energy) and yes if the tech and reasonable costs stack up then sure rooftop, pavement, wherever within our industrial/ built up areas is great for it. Bring it on.
What I have an issue with is people sprouting this rubbish that we can realistically power the world with solar any time soon and that it will save the world. It's bull****, the cost and impacts with current tech make that a dumb solution. Can it contribute? Sure, but should we pursue that blindly without looking at the costs and impacts?
Moore's Doc is over the top and uses all the worst examples he could find. But thats just a matter of degree, the inescapable truth is that all our supposed green energy is not really that green and definately not as environmentally pure as many believe.
Select to expand quotePoida said..
you know that re posting things multiple time doesn't make us think it is any better the second time. It shows you are trying to spread the gospel of deniers.
It just reinforces your circular bias.
ooops wasn't intentional... would delete if I could.
Select to expand quoteParadox said....That is what the scientific debate is all about - the level of contribution of all our influences and then the subset of CO2 in that contribution.
The science on that is far from settled, and there are very good arguments for anywhere from 10% to 80% or more. We simply dont know. The problem is that the consensus or science facts are being presented as not just the belief that we are contributing 50% or more (often 100%), but that the science clearly shows that is the case. And that is very untrue, its a bald faced lie.
...
Oh by the way, if you don't believe that 100% of global warming is anthropologic, then that will get you branded a denier in lots of places. Welcome to the club 
Dear IanK,
I refer you to the above statements for reference. Paradox claims that there are "very good arguments" that up to 90% of the observed warming is natural. 90%!
"We simply don't know", paradox asserts. Gee how convenient.
"We", being most reputable scientific bodies on the planet don't know, yet paradox knows. Isn't that a self defeating argument? 
Tobacco and asbestos companies knew for decades their products were killing people, and they claimed exactly the same crap and lied too us.
Best, HG
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
I refer you to the above statements for reference. Paradox claims that there are "very good arguments" that up to 90% of the observed warming is natural. 90%!
Not sure what you are getting at here HG. Saying there are good arguments doesn't mean I believe they are correct, only that they exist.
But yes, there are solid scientific arguments that cannot be discounted or disproved that the majority of the warming we are seeing is from natural variance. Just as there are also solid scientific arguments that the majority of warming is from human causes. Both have merit and both cannot be disproved. Neither are either of them able to be proved, not the least because the opposing theory also has wieght.
What is overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific community is that BOTH are at play here. What the relative contribution of each is, is the topic of debate with wide spreads. I know you have an issue accepting this, but quite simply, we don't know.
My comments here usually focus on the people/organisations that promote as "fact" that there is proof and scientific concensus that humans are the main contributer. That is wrong and I call it out as such with ample backup.
Not that you have ever asked, but my view is that the mix is probably somewhere in the middle with a leaning to natural. But really that leaning is not based on anything but rooting for the underdog I think. Like everyone else, I don't know. And that is always my point.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..holy guacamole said..
I refer you to the above statements for reference. Paradox claims that there are "very good arguments" that up to 90% of the observed warming is natural. 90%!
Not sure what you are getting at here HG. Saying there are good arguments doesn't mean I believe they are correct, only that they exist.
But yes, there are solid scientific arguments that cannot be discounted or disproved that the majority of the warming we are seeing is from natural variance. Just as there are also solid scientific arguments that the majority of warming is from human causes. Both have merit and both cannot be disproved. Neither are either of them able to be proved, not the least because the opposing theory also has wieght.
What is overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific community is that BOTH are at play here. What the relative contribution of each is, is the topic of debate with wide spreads. I know you have an issue accepting this, but quite simply, we don't know.
My comments here usually focus on the people/organisations that promote as "fact" that there is proof and scientific concensus that humans are the main contributer. That is wrong and I call it out as such with ample backup.
Not that you have ever asked, but my view is that the mix is probably somewhere in the middle with a leaning to natural. But really that leaning is not based on anything but rooting for the underdog I think. Like everyone else, I don't know. And that is always my point.
This really is pathetic.
I had something similar half a year ago. I bought a new air conditioner after three months I started having problems with it. often it turns off itself, often it turns on various functions, it used a lot of electricity from this I received huge bills. Then I decided that I needed to find an air conditioner repair service as soon as possible. I told my sister about it, and she advised me to www.socool.sg/ , as her husband was repairing their air conditioning there, and they are very happy with the result. I am glad that I took the advice of my sister, as the guys did everything efficiently, and most importantly quickly, thereby saving me a lot of time.
Damage to coastal property in Australia caused by a storm is linked to sea level rise in this BBC article.
So was the damage to coastal property caused by a storm or a rise in sea level?
A perfect example of how the mainstream media will latch on to anything to brainwash us man made climate change is real.
www.bbc.com/news/av/world-australia-53576526/climate-change-coastal-erosion-to-threaten-more-australian-homes
