Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Climate Change "Debate"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ming
    replied
    Originally posted by Kidicious View Post
    as a normal person More Kidiot Nonsense and Lies
    FIFY

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidicious
    replied
    I'm not claiming that climate deniers don't exist, but as a normal person I don't act like people who disagree with me are one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ming
    replied
    Originally posted by Kidicious View Post
    No. Many Republicans accept that the climate is changing.
    Far less Republicans than most normal thinking people

    Ming: Why isn't this thread about climate change. Ur a climate denier! - MORE MADE UP NONSENSE FROM KIDIOT
    FIFY

    Leave a comment:


  • Berzerker
    replied
    If Greenland melts - and it is melting now - seas will rise 20-25 ft. That would cover much of Florida and numerous coastal cities around the world. How many trillions will be spent to relocate? If Antarctica melted too seas would rise over 200 ft, that would cover...well... game over, game over man. Volcanoes cool us off but their somewhat sporadic nature are more temporary than Milankovitch cycles which are currently more conducive to a prolonged warming trend. The irony is by cleaning up our GHGS we're pumping into the atmosphere we warm the world even faster. It may be too late to stop Greenland melting.

    On the other hand ice ages would become less likely or reduced in their effect, all that water locked up in ice would rejoin the hydro cycle producing a wetter climate. We started warming the world long ago with slash and burn clearing practices and then with farming and animal domestication.

    The Garden of Eden was destroyed by global warming, during the ice age the Persian Gulf was a river system and rising seas covered it about 8,000 years ago. All those people had to move and we know they did because many settlements appear around the current Gulf at that time. Imagine what it will cost for billions of people to move.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidicious
    replied
    Originally posted by giblets View Post
    They were never going to be on board. They need to be voted out.
    When you really want that propose something that is realistic

    Leave a comment:


  • giblets
    replied
    They were never going to be on board. They need to be voted out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidicious
    replied
    Originally posted by giblets View Post

    Just cut the military budget by 200 billion per year for ten years
    Good luck getting any Rs on board with it then.

    Leave a comment:


  • giblets
    replied
    Originally posted by Kidicious View Post

    What cuts to spending to pay for it?
    Just cut the military budget by 200 billion per year for ten years

    Leave a comment:


  • rah
    replied
    A moron and a coward. That's our Kidiot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidicious
    replied
    Originally posted by giblets View Post
    If the government doesn't need to build the wind or solar, just fund the extra battery capacity and transmission lines, and nuclear power is kept, then the taxpayer cost is around 2 trillion.
    What cuts to spending to pay for it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidicious
    replied
    Originally posted by giblets View Post
    If the government doesn't need to build the wind or solar, just fund the extra battery capacity and transmission lines, and nuclear power is kept, then the taxpayer cost is around 2 trillion.
    What cuts to spending to pay for it?

    Leave a comment:


  • rah
    replied
    Kid, you still haven't answered on whether you believe in global warming or not?

    Leave a comment:


  • giblets
    replied
    If the government doesn't need to build the wind or solar, just fund the extra battery capacity and transmission lines, and nuclear power is kept, then the taxpayer cost is around 2 trillion.

    Leave a comment:


  • giblets
    replied
    Converting the entire U.S. power grid to 100 percent renewable energy in the next decade is technologically and logistically attainable, and would cost an estimated $4.5 trillion, according to a recent analysis by the energy research firm Wood Mackenzie. That’s nearly as much as the United States has spent on the war on terror since 2001.

    The estimate represents the cost of replacing all fossil fuels and nuclear power with hydroelectricity, biomass, geothermal, wind, and solar. The price tag would drop to $4 trillion if nuclear were allowed to remain part of the energy mix, Greentech Media reports.

    To achieve 100 percent renewable energy over the next 10 years, the analysis finds that there would first have to be a massive buildout of wind and solar capacity, costing $1.5 trillion. Next, the U.S. would need to add 900 gigawatts of battery storage, raising the price tag to $4 trillion. Lastly, the U.S. would need to double its transmission lines — from 200,000 miles today to 400,000 miles — to handle the new distributed power system, costing another $700 billion.

    The estimate is based on current technology and does not factor in future innovation, according to Greentech Media. Analysts at Wood Mackenzie also found that the $4.5 trillion price tag stays the same whether the U.S. completes the transition in 10 years or 20.

    “"Total price tag is not dependent on timeline, just the cost per year, as we are assuming current technology,"” said Dan Shreve, Head of Global Wind Energy Research at Wood Mackenzie and one of the authors of the report.
    https://e360.yale.edu/digest/shiftin...analysis-finds

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidicious
    replied
    And I don't shame women in the third world into abortion

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X