0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Well it is the Midwest pan.
Fossil Fuels: The Building Block of Green Energy 50 years ago
Quote from: sonofdaxjones on February 09, 2017, 01:40:34 PMFossil Fuels: The Building Block of Green Energy 50 years agoFTFYAlso... as the republican conservatives that want to institute a carbon tax cite, why wouldn't you want to have a robust and ubiquitous "insurance" plan in alternative sustainable (practically infinite) energy sources for the long term future of society? Takes a real knuckle-dragger to oppose "saving" for the future when it comes to energy and the environment, or concerning ourselves over "clean air or water"... then again dax and the trumpeters are pretty rough ridin' stupid.
Can we at least all agree that we should be using a whole lot more nuclear energy?
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html?m=1Your can find similar numbers from other sources. Plus a very low carbon footprint.
People in my herd do not deny climate change. Climate has had swings in variation for thousands of years. Man has altered the environment and it affects weather - urban asphalt or plowing the prairies. My herd doesn't accept the conclusions from chicken little doomsdayers who are observing something and then using false data and mathematical gymnastics to come up a scenario that becomes a weapon to achieve the leftist aim of one world government, replacing personal liberty with state control, and creating a communist economy. Many are whipping up hysteria so they can enrich themselves.
Quote from: renocat on February 09, 2017, 11:09:46 AMPeople in my herd do not deny climate change. Climate has had swings in variation for thousands of years. Man has altered the environment and it affects weather - urban asphalt or plowing the prairies. My herd doesn't accept the conclusions from chicken little doomsdayers who are observing something and then using false data and mathematical gymnastics to come up a scenario that becomes a weapon to achieve the leftist aim of one world government, replacing personal liberty with state control, and creating a communist economy. Many are whipping up hysteria so they can enrich themselves.As evident from the drivel you spouted above, your "herd" is rough ridin' misinformed paranoid reactionaries. Turn off fox news and info wars, stop listening to the Koch brothers (who actually are "trying to enrich themselves"), and read what respected scientists and experts the world over are saying on the subject.It's happening, humans are accelerating it, we have an alternate path to avoid destruction and peril, and it is going to take a concerted and sustained effort... But don't trust me, trust business insider and the pentagon.http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-debunks-strongest-argument-against-global-warming-climate-change-2017-1?r=US&IR=Thttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/pentagon-fights-climate-change-sea-level-rise-defense-department-military/
Further on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books. A variation of Godwin's law on full display. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html
Quote from: sonofdaxjones on February 13, 2017, 01:13:19 PMFurther on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books. A variation of Godwin's law on full display. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.htmlI only try to trust/read reliable sources... Sorry, try again.https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher
Quote from: camKSU on February 13, 2017, 01:17:18 PMQuote from: sonofdaxjones on February 13, 2017, 01:13:19 PMFurther on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books. A variation of Godwin's law on full display. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.htmlI only try to trust/read reliable sources... Sorry, try again.https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maherwikipedia? The "Source" that anyone can edit?
Quote from: sonofdaxjones on February 13, 2017, 01:44:10 PMQuote from: camKSU on February 13, 2017, 01:17:18 PMQuote from: sonofdaxjones on February 13, 2017, 01:13:19 PMFurther on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books. A variation of Godwin's law on full display. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.htmlI only try to trust/read reliable sources... Sorry, try again.https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maherwikipedia? The "Source" that anyone can edit? Yep, that's the one... BTW, dailymail is the only source that has been given this designation, however it's not the only one with problems in reliability and reporting.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/13/this-is-why-conservative-media-outlets-like-the-daily-mail-are-unreliable
Quote from: camKSU on February 13, 2017, 01:48:11 PMQuote from: sonofdaxjones on February 13, 2017, 01:44:10 PMQuote from: camKSU on February 13, 2017, 01:17:18 PMQuote from: sonofdaxjones on February 13, 2017, 01:13:19 PMFurther on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books. A variation of Godwin's law on full display. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.htmlI only try to trust/read reliable sources... Sorry, try again.https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maherwikipedia? The "Source" that anyone can edit? Yep, that's the one... BTW, dailymail is the only source that has been given this designation, however it's not the only one with problems in reliability and reporting.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/13/this-is-why-conservative-media-outlets-like-the-daily-mail-are-unreliableCam, in this day an age you can say the same thing about any so called MSM source. Numerous other MSM get it wrong, a lot. In fact, if you were to go back to the time when many MSM media sources were building their "go to" reputation, and start doing some research, you can find example after example where they just essentially made crap up. But no databases or technology or ability to truly fact check them existed. In this case, this is the typical response of Warmests when they get caught, repeatedly attack the sources who have exposed them.
Quote from: sonofdaxjones on February 13, 2017, 01:53:11 PMQuote from: camKSU on February 13, 2017, 01:48:11 PMQuote from: sonofdaxjones on February 13, 2017, 01:44:10 PMQuote from: camKSU on February 13, 2017, 01:17:18 PMQuote from: sonofdaxjones on February 13, 2017, 01:13:19 PMFurther on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books. A variation of Godwin's law on full display. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.htmlI only try to trust/read reliable sources... Sorry, try again.https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maherwikipedia? The "Source" that anyone can edit? Yep, that's the one... BTW, dailymail is the only source that has been given this designation, however it's not the only one with problems in reliability and reporting.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/13/this-is-why-conservative-media-outlets-like-the-daily-mail-are-unreliableCam, in this day an age you can say the same thing about any so called MSM source. Numerous other MSM get it wrong, a lot. In fact, if you were to go back to the time when many MSM media sources were building their "go to" reputation, and start doing some research, you can find example after example where they just essentially made crap up. But no databases or technology or ability to truly fact check them existed. In this case, this is the typical response of Warmests when they get caught, repeatedly attack the sources who have exposed them. Hey dumb-crap either actually read the article or work on your comprehension because as is pointed out numerous times the difference between a reliable source and fox news/infowars/dailymail is that when proven wrong or when new information comes out a reliable source will update/correct the information or verify the rebuttal. As opposed to doubling down on the stupidity, "fake news", or calling it all a conspiracy... Which is why wikipedia banned them.The source for the dailymail's own article has disavowed them and their conclusion, the very expert they are saying gives them credence.Wake up to bullshit you've been fed, my friend.