Who still believes in Global Warming?

[Chuck Sims]

there is no global warming .

Planet earth was hotter millions of years ago.

This is all about money and controlling the people. WAKE UP YOU DUMB GLOBAL WARMING DONKS.

[Indecent]

However, the globe has been cooling since 2003...FACT

No need to spoon feed, but if you could help me find some place where this is mentioned I'd appreciate it. I couldn't find it in a cursory search (only something that looks related involving water temperature), but if you have anything off the top of your head I'd appreciate it.

[curious]

did man-made global warming cause all the ice to melt and thus ending the ice-age?

Yes it did. Humans invented fire and all of their camp fires caused the global warming and the ice age to end.

[DwightShrute]

Yes it did. Humans invented fire and all of their camp fires caused the global warming and the ice age to end.

[curious]

What kind of fukin Orwellian doublespeak is this shit? mandatory... force... choice.

Just stick to getting high pal.

So you would get rid of all building codes? When the building code forces me to build a foundation that meets a certain specification you would just get rid of it and I could build a home that would collapse in a high wind or a hard rainstorm?

or you would let me build a home with no insulation?

or with a roof that would get ripped off in the first high wind?

[curious]

nuclear power is not the answer either.

why?

[JOHON8]

Anyone who believes the climate isn't changing because of human activity is plain ignorant of proven scientific fact.

[maersksealand]

they have an article today predicting how bad it will be in the year 3000 ...very funny

I just drove from Hampton, VA to Seattle...90% of the trip was along snow...my penis is still completely numb after attempting to pee outside at -5F in Wyoming...I mean where the puck is the global warming, what happened to the predictions made 10 years ago saying the snow will disappear and the oceans will rise?

[Naz18]

Planet earth was hotter millions of years ago. This is all about money and controlling the people. WAKE UP YOU DUMB GLOBAL WARMING DONKS.

Theirs money made on conversing what we use?

[DwightShrute]

..my penis is still completely numb after attempting to pee outside at -5F in Wyoming...I mean where the puck is the global warming, what happened to the predictions made 10 years ago saying the snow will disappear and the oceans will rise?

[pavyracer]

Note to self: When is cold in the winter it means global warning doesn't happen.

[subs]

nuclear power is not the answer because natural/man-made disasters and nuclear plants do not mix well...

to me its painfully obvious that the potential destruction is not worth the small payoff. what wrong with solar etc? also storing the waste forever (or putting it in DU weapons) is just stupid for every1's health. just take a big earth quake or something...

would it be ok with u if a nuclear plant was put in ur back yard?

[curious]

nuclear power is not the answer because natural/man-made disasters and nuclear plants do not mix well...

to me its painfully obvious that the potential destruction is not worth the small payoff. what wrong with solar etc? also storing the waste forever (or putting it in DU weapons) is just stupid for every1's health. just take a big earth quake or something...

would it be ok with u if a nuclear plant was put in ur back yard?

How many of these disasters have we had in the nuclear age? How many has France had? Or Germany?

They could build one of the modern and safe nuclear plants at the industrial park a few miles from my house, I would be cool with that . There is an oil refinery there now and they built the refinery in such a way that most people have no idea that it is there. If you came to the county I live in I would be you $1,000 that you could not find the refinery.

[curious]

nuclear power is not the answer because natural/man-made disasters and nuclear plants do not mix well...

to me its painfully obvious that the potential destruction is not worth the small payoff. what wrong with solar etc? also storing the waste forever (or putting it in DU weapons) is just stupid for every1's health. just take a big earth quake or something...

would it be ok with u if a nuclear plant was put in ur back yard?

Wow, you obviously no nothing about how modern nuclear plants are designed or how they work or what their risks are.

What is wrong with solar? Nothing if you are planning on covering every flat surface with solar collectors so that we can have about 10% of our energy needs met. Then we will have a big problem growing food.

If you are talking about concentrating solar power then I am cool with that. Now you need to figure out how can transfer the generated power from the deserts and the equator to the places that actually need the power. Good luck.

[HotStreak]

Global warming is real, the reason's are bullshit.

Every 30,000 years, the Earth enters an Ice Age. We are 7,000 years overdue. An Ice Age begins with the Earth heating up. Pollution has nothing to do with this phenomenon. Your drinking water is another story.

[subs]

curious u r right i am far from an expert in nuclear power plants. so if u r telling me, that if a plant were to be suddenly torn in 2 (earthquake or explosion) that there would not be a huge problem? ok so it shuts down the reaction but saying that any1 can guarantee the safe storage of large amounts of nuclear waste for 1000's of years? if so then i am certainly getting an education for which i am grateful.

i live in australia so i know about solar, maybe wave/wind is more applicable elsewhere?

i do not know but i hear that there have been major advancements in moving electric power over large distances. hopefully we can overcome smore of our problems in producing clean NRG.

PS i'd find ur refinery - just hire a helicopter with a thermal imagery system. maybe not the most cost effective way, so i guess it a tie

[falconticket]

nuclear power is not the answer because natural/man-made disasters and nuclear plants do not mix well...

to me its painfully obvious that the potential destruction is not worth the small payoff. what wrong with solar etc? also storing the waste forever (or putting it in DU weapons) is just stupid for every1's health. just take a big earth quake or something...

would it be ok with u if a nuclear plant was put in ur back yard?

Solar power has to be stored and concentrated before use. Which means lead acid batteries by the tons. Billions of tons. Lead acid is much more detrimental to the environment than nuclear power plants.

[subs]

this may help

some of the article below:
The lead-acid battery industry is heavily regulated and does a great job of recycling its products, as retail outlets in most states must by law accept dead lead-acid batteries for recycling. 60 to 80 percent of most lead-acid batteries is recycled, including over 90 percent of the lead, which is up to 4 times more than most other commodities that are commonly recycled. In fact, about 60 percent of the lead used to manufacture new lead-acid batteries comes from recycled lead, and, overall, 60 to 80 percent of a typical lead-acid battery is made from recycled lead and plastic.

The plastic in batteries is recycled and reprocessed into other plastic products and battery acid is treated and either disposed of safely into the sewer system or converted into sodium sulfate, a powder used in textile and glass manufacturing and as an ingredient in laundry detergent.

Overall, lead-acid batteries have the highest rate of recycling among all products sold in the USA.

The only time a lead-acid battery ends up in the landfill is through carelessness. Many states impose hefty fines on anybody or any company found disposing of lead-acid batteries incorrectly. Thus, the landfill volume of lead-acid batteries is negligible.

Fortunately, that's one myth that can be considered safely disposed of!

hopefully industrial use of lead acid would be ok even if a few folks do not recycle.

[maersksealand]

Just a look at what those who pimp ‘global warming/climate change’ call science. These were the same people who pimped “the ice age is coming” claim back in the 1970′s.
Fox Newsreports (because the liberal media pimps the GW ‘science’)

A new year is around the corner, and some climate scientists and environmental activists say that means we’re one step closer to a climate Armageddon. But are we really?
Predicting the weather — especially a decade or more in advance — is unbelievably challenging. What’s the track record of those most worried about global warming? Decades ago, what did prominent scientists think the environment would be like in 2010? FoxNews.com has compiled eight of the most egregiously mistaken predictions, and asked the predictors to reflect on what really happened.
1. Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.
Ten years later, in December 2009, London was hit by the heaviest snowfall seen in 20 years. And just last week, a snowstorm forced Heathrow airport to shut down, stranding thousands of Christmas travelers.
A spokesman for the government-funded British Council, where Viner now works as the lead climate change expert, told FoxNews.com that climate science had improved since the prediction was made.
Over the past decade, climate science has moved on considerably and there is now more understanding about the impact climate change will have on weather patterns in the coming years,” British Council spokesman Mark Herbert said. “However, Dr Viner believes that his general predictions are still relevant.”
Herbert also pointed to another prediction from Viner in the same article, in which Viner predicted that “heavy snow would return occasionally” and that it would “probably cause chaos in 20 years time.” Other scientists said “a few years” was simply too short a time frame for kids to forget what snow was.
“I’d say at some point, say 50 years from now, it might be right. If he said a few years, that was an unwise prediction,” said Michael Oppenheimer, director of Princeton University’s Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy.
Of course, Oppenheimer himself is known for controversial global warming scenarios.
2. “[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michael Oppenheimer, published in “Dead Heat,” St. Martin’s Press, 1990.
Oppenheimer told FoxNews.com that he was trying to illustrate one possible outcome of failing to curb emissions , not making a specific prediction. He added that the gist of his story had in fact come true, even if the events had not occurred in the U.S.”On the whole I would stand by these predictions — not predictions, sorry, scenarios — as having at least in a general way actually come true,” he said. “There’s been extensive drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The fraction of the world that’s in drought has increased over that period.”
That may be in doubt, however. Data from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center shows that precipitation — rain and snow — has increased slightly over the century.
3. “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.
Ice coverage has fallen, though as of last month, the Arctic Ocean had 3.82 million square miles of ice cover — an area larger than the continental United States — according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center.
4. “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010.” Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
Status of prediction: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period.
The group that did the study, Atmospheric and Environmental Research Inc., said it could not comment in time for this story due to the holidays.
But Oppenheimer said that the difference between an increase of nearly one degree and an increase of two degrees was “definitely within the margin of error… I would think the scientists themselves would be happy with that prediction.”
Many scientists, especially in the 1970s, made an error in the other direction by predicting global freezing.

This is the ‘science’ that those who believe in the man-made myth of global warming use. Even when these GW alarmist are wrong, they claim it is due to….global warming.

[losturmarbles]

its doublegood that thinkcrime be severely punished... have u even read orwell ?

i used these words in different paragraphs to help u to separate the issues.... but i'll help u out: yes some things in building codes should be/are mandatory; power companies should be forced to by available green electricity; and normal people should have the information to make choices.

.... ummm stick to being drunk, i hear it a real brain opener. i haven't done propper drugs in a while - doesn't go with being a parent, and no a little puff every now and again is no biggie.

but thanks for the constructive input bro.



i agree with most of this although i believe the "end game" is perhaps more complex. don't know what these #%^$$ believe but it anint the tooth fairy. human beings r not a virus but we r "infecting the earth" as a virus would infect a living organism - sort of, well loosely speaking. loved the matrix probably because it has so many great analogies in it.

don't think either of us r shallow...

i believe the warming, or at least the refusal to do anything about it, is part of this end-game? could it be?

WTF are you talking about?

You're saying the government should tell individuals how to run their life and tell private companies how to run their business, so what choice is there?

[losturmarbles]

So you would get rid of all building codes? When the building code forces me to build a foundation that meets a certain specification you would just get rid of it and I could build a home that would collapse in a high wind or a hard rainstorm?

or you would let me build a home with no insulation?

or with a roof that would get ripped off in the first high wind?

Really? There seems to be this reoccurring theme with you making fallacious arguments. You use this tactic where you specifically create a position that's easy to argue against, rather than challenge the stated position.

I never said to get rid of building codes. I didn't say anything about building codes.

But I've got a question, why would you build a house on a shitty foundation? Why would you build a house with no insulation? Why do you want to build shitty houses?

Building codes are suppose to serve a purpose: To protect the integrity of the building to protect it's occupants. There's probably plenty of building codes that don't serve this purpose and yes, those should be thrown out. But it's not a federal concern, and certainly not a global concern.

Enforcing green initiatives is nothing but eco-fascism that does little to nothing to actually make the world any more "green".
Tyranny in the name of saving the earth.

[losturmarbles]

Anyone who believes the climate isn't changing because of human activity is plain ignorant of proven scientific fact.

fyp

[subs]

WTF are you talking about?

You're saying the government should tell individuals how to run their life and tell private companies how to run their business, so what choice is there?

r u being deliberately obfuscatory or just so buried in ur don't-mess-with-my-life ethos that u r having real trouble with this?

yes companies readily sell inferior products unless some sort of standards r enforced. obviously this applies to construction as well.

just like labelling GM foods is necessary IMO, to give citizens information in order to facilitate choice, so this can happen with products/produce which has been transported a long way.

and if some private citizen or company were to produce green electricity then power companies should buy it - just like in germany/england etc. not so tyrannical really.

for instance apples from NZ or wine from france would contribute much more to pollution than those locally produced. we are asking people to make sacrifices because of this pollution but these sorts of simple measures could easily make a massive difference...

so could white roofs in very hot places. so simple.

[curious]

Really? There seems to be this reoccurring theme with you making fallacious arguments. You use this tactic where you specifically create a position that's easy to argue against, rather than challenge the stated position.

I never said to get rid of building codes. I didn't say anything about building codes.

But I've got a question, why would you build a house on a shitty foundation? Why would you build a house with no insulation? Why do you want to build shitty houses?

Building codes are suppose to serve a purpose: To protect the integrity of the building to protect it's occupants. There's probably plenty of building codes that don't serve this purpose and yes, those should be thrown out. But it's not a federal concern, and certainly not a global concern.

Enforcing green initiatives is nothing but eco-fascism that does little to nothing to actually make the world any more "green".
Tyranny in the name of saving the earth.

Fallacious arguments? How is suggesting that building codes could be upgraded to be scientific instead of just kowtowing to the big insulation companies fallacious?

I wouldn't build a house on a bad foundation, but builders showed in the past that they would do so and they did do so. Builders also showed that they would build houses with no insulation or poor insulation. They did so very willingly before they were required to do so. My grandmother's house had no insulation in it, until I went there and added it for her.

You are one to talk about someone making falacious arguments and then you ask me this question "Why do YOU want to build 'shitty' houses", when you know that I don't want to do that and was pointing out what was done before building codes were enforced.

You did say that you did not want people to be forced to use energy efficient initiatives in their homes because that was a "Green" policy.

You don't know what you are talking about. The building codes have requirements for energy efficiency. These requirements just don't actually accomplish very much. I am saying that these requirements should be changed so that they actually do mean something. The changes I have in mind are scientifically sound, are known to work, and would drastically reduce the energy usage while not adding very much to the overall cost. They also make the building healthier to live in. This is not a "green initiative", the green idiots do not talk about technologies or approaches that are easy to do and do not add very much to the cost.

[curious]

curious u r right i am far from an expert in nuclear power plants. so if u r telling me, that if a plant were to be suddenly torn in 2 (earthquake or explosion) that there would not be a huge problem? ok so it shuts down the reaction but saying that any1 can guarantee the safe storage of large amounts of nuclear waste for 1000's of years? if so then i am certainly getting an education for which i am grateful.

i live in australia so i know about solar, maybe wave/wind is more applicable elsewhere?

i do not know but i hear that there have been major advancements in moving electric power over large distances. hopefully we can overcome smore of our problems in producing clean NRG.

PS i'd find ur refinery - just hire a helicopter with a thermal imagery system. maybe not the most cost effective way, so i guess it a tie

Let's see, you admit to not knowing very much about modern nuclear plants and then you pose a question while assuming you know the answer. I'm not answering this, study up on it and get the answer yourself. France thinks that the modern nuclear power plant design is safe. There is a reason why they think this. Read up on it.

The storage of nuclear waste problem was already solved. Read up on that also.

You know about solar? No you don't. You assume that Photovoltaic is the "answer" but it cannot be because you could cover the entire planet in PV arrays and not generate but a fraction of the power needed by modern civilization. So, try again.

I hate to tell you this but there is no "green" technology that can come anywhere close to providing the terabytes of electricity that the modern world uses. And none of these technologies can ever come close to this because the math says so. Do this, it will help you understand this. Find out how many watts a PV array that is 1 yard by 1 yard in size (or 1 meter by 1 meter) will generate in one year using the cloud cover and the solar radiation received at rooftop level over a typical one year period for a given area, say Australia or specific parts of Australia if the solar radiation at rooftop level will differ significantly over one year. Then multiply that by the size of Australia itself and compare that number to the gigabytes of electricity that Australia uses in one year. I think the answer to that is going to be very surprising. Now the "Green" dictators claim that advances in solar technology is going to overcome this problem but no matter what you do you cannot convert more watts of sunshine than fall on the ground, so even if the PV array was 100% efficient (which it cannot be) you will have a limit to the amount of kilobytes that a PV array can generate.

Major advances in moving power over long distances? That patent was filed in the late 1800s. But guess what? GE squashed it.

[subs]

from wiki

Illegal dumping
Main article: Radioactive waste dumping by the 'Ndrangheta
Authorities in Italy are investigating a 'Ndrangheta mafia clan accused of trafficking and illegally dumping nuclear waste. According to a turncoat, a manager of the Italy’s state energy research agency Enea paid the clan to get rid of 600 drums of toxic and radioactive waste from Italy, Switzerland, France, Germany, and the US, with Somalia as the destination, where the waste was buried after buying off local politicians. Former employees of Enea are suspected of paying the criminals to take waste off their hands in the 1980s and 1990s. Shipments to Somalia continued into the 1990s, while the 'Ndrangheta clan also blew up shiploads of waste, including radioactive hospital waste, and sending them to the sea bed off the Calabrian coast.[58] According to the environmental group Legambiente, former members of the 'Ndrangheta have said that they were paid to sink ships with radioactive material for the last 20 years.[59]
[edit]


this is just a small portion of the piece. WTF?
nothing like this should be happening it is just so dangerous.

[subs]

smore

“Solar energy’s potential is off the chart,” write energy experts Ken Zweibel, James Mason, and Vasilis Fthenakis in a December 2007 article “A Solar Grand Plan” published in Scientific American magazine. Only two billionths of the Sun’s energy strikes the Earth, but as they point out, the solar energy striking the Earth in a 40-minute period is equal to all the energy human society consumes in a year. Solar electric systems on our homes and businesses or giant commercial solar systems could provide us with an abundance of clean energy.


now i just don't know the answer...

[losturmarbles]

r u being deliberately obfuscatory or just so buried in ur don't-mess-with-my-life ethos that u r having real trouble with this?

yes companies readily sell inferior products unless some sort of standards r enforced. obviously this applies to construction as well.

just like labelling GM foods is necessary IMO, to give citizens information in order to facilitate choice, so this can happen with products/produce which has been transported a long way.

and if some private citizen or company were to produce green electricity then power companies should buy it - just like in germany/england etc. not so tyrannical really.

for instance apples from NZ or wine from france would contribute much more to pollution than those locally produced. we are asking people to make sacrifices because of this pollution but these sorts of simple measures could easily make a massive difference...

so could white roofs in very hot places. so simple.

Having trouble with what, understanding your circular logic?

Let me break it down for you. Human beings don't cause global warming.
Any energy saving measure should be done by free choice. Laws and force are counter productive to efficiency. People shouldn't be punished for living the way they want to live and not according to your mess-with-other-people's-life ethos.

-----------------------------

Let me get this straight. You want to ban ethanol, force people to buy green energy, outlaw nuclear power, force people to paint their roof white and buy solar panels, raise the price of gas, raise taxes, tax imports, but for GM foods you just want a label on it?

You're gung-ho on regulation, yet you would allow GMOs to be produced and consumed? \
This brings my point full circle. You will regurgitate the global warming hysteria and green propaganda, but when there's a real threat to humanity it goes ignored. GMOs create allergies, toxins, diseases and nutritional problems. The FDA knew this 1992 and LIED by saying they were safe. The guy in charge of the FDA in 1992, Michael Taylor, claimed that the agency was not aware of any information showing that GMOs were significantly different, and were safe to consume. Seven years later, because of a lawsuit, secret internal FDA memos revealed the policy was a lie. Not only were they were aware, but FDA scientists repeatedly warned they were unsafe. They were ignored, their warnings were even denied, and GMOs were allowed into the food supply. Where is this Michael Taylor now? He's the food safety czar in the Obama administration. The guy that deliberately put unsafe foods in our food supply is now in charge of food safety, and you think that government is looking out for humanity?

When you have a government body of scientists that is owned by government and given policy guidance on what to produce by government, then their reports and findings are fundamentally biased and untrustworthy. This applies to the FDA, the IPCC, or any other government agency.

[losturmarbles]

Fallacious arguments? How is suggesting that building codes could be upgraded to be scientific instead of just kowtowing to the big insulation companies fallacious?

I wouldn't build a house on a bad foundation, but builders showed in the past that they would do so and they did do so. Builders also showed that they would build houses with no insulation or poor insulation. They did so very willingly before they were required to do so. My grandmother's house had no insulation in it, until I went there and added it for her.

You are one to talk about someone making falacious arguments and then you ask me this question "Why do YOU want to build 'shitty' houses", when you know that I don't want to do that and was pointing out what was done before building codes were enforced.

You did say that you did not want people to be forced to use energy efficient initiatives in their homes because that was a "Green" policy.

You don't know what you are talking about. The building codes have requirements for energy efficiency. These requirements just don't actually accomplish very much. I am saying that these requirements should be changed so that they actually do mean something. The changes I have in mind are scientifically sound, are known to work, and would drastically reduce the energy usage while not adding very much to the overall cost. They also make the building healthier to live in. This is not a "green initiative", the green idiots do not talk about technologies or approaches that are easy to do and do not add very much to the cost.

I'm starting to think that maybe you're not purposely arguing strawmen, you just have a bigger issue with reading comprehension. It's ok, just makes it harder to have an honest debate.

[curious]

I'm starting to think that maybe you're not purposely arguing strawmen, you just have a bigger issue with reading comprehension. It's ok, just makes it harder to have an honest debate.

Why do you talk to me, I have asked you not to. There is something seriously wrong with you and I would rather that you did not bother me. I can put you on ignore if that would make you feel better.

[curious]

smore

“Solar energy’s potential is off the chart,” write energy experts Ken Zweibel, James Mason, and Vasilis Fthenakis in a December 2007 article “A Solar Grand Plan” published in Scientific American magazine. Only two billionths of the Sun’s energy strikes the Earth, but as they point out, the solar energy striking the Earth in a 40-minute period is equal to all the energy human society consumes in a year. Solar electric systems on our homes and businesses or giant commercial solar systems could provide us with an abundance of clean energy.


now i just don't know the answer...

You need to stop reading this kind of nonsense and do the math yourself. It isn't that hard. You have to put transportation losses into your calculations. And real costs for the PV arrays, not imaginary costs. And you have to look at the amount of raw materials, some of them rare, that go into making PV panels.

Then you have to look at cloud cover, so you have to know the solar degree days per square foot for each area where you are planning on creating these huge PV farms.

This kind of calculation isn't that difficult, you can do it with a pencil, paper, and a basic calculator.

You have to look at all the heavily populated areas and ignore the sparsely populated areas, not too hard you can easily find maps that have the population density marked out for you.

Figure out where you are going to put all the PV arrays, calculate the amount of Kilowatts generated while accounting for length of day, cloud cover, and other factors that affect solar gain.

And you can give us an answer.

I can tell you before you start that your answer will be far short of the Kilowatts required by the populated areas.

One thing you need to put into your calculation is how much energy it costs to create the PV arrays. And how much raw material is used up.

If you are diligent you can calculate this in a day or two. Probably less.

Then you have the answer from your own calculations and you don't have to rely on liars and people with an axe to grind.

[losturmarbles]

Why do you talk to me, I have asked you not to. There is something seriously wrong with you and I would rather that you did not bother me. I can put you on ignore if that would make you feel better.

I don't recall you asking me anything. If you don't want me to address you, then stop misquoting my position. The thing that bothers you is you can't directly challenge my position without using a logical fallacy. And don't kid yourself, it's all about you making yourself feel better, so ignore away.

[subs]

You need to stop reading this kind of nonsense and do the math yourself. It isn't that hard. You have to put transportation losses into your calculations. And real costs for the PV arrays, not imaginary costs. And you have to look at the amount of raw materials, some of them rare, that go into making PV panels.

Then you have to look at cloud cover, so you have to know the solar degree days per square foot for each area where you are planning on creating these huge PV farms.

This kind of calculation isn't that difficult, you can do it with a pencil, paper, and a basic calculator.

You have to look at all the heavily populated areas and ignore the sparsely populated areas, not too hard you can easily find maps that have the population density marked out for you.

Figure out where you are going to put all the PV arrays, calculate the amount of Kilowatts generated while accounting for length of day, cloud cover, and other factors that affect solar gain.

And you can give us an answer.

I can tell you before you start that your answer will be far short of the Kilowatts required by the populated areas.

One thing you need to put into your calculation is how much energy it costs to create the PV arrays. And how much raw material is used up.

If you are diligent you can calculate this in a day or two. Probably less.

Then you have the answer from your own calculations and you don't have to rely on liars and people with an axe to grind.

if u want to prove me wrong u do it - like i got 2 days to waste on u

[subs]

Having trouble with what, understanding your circular logic?

Let me break it down for you. Human beings don't cause global warming.

ok we wil have to agree to disagree here

Any energy saving measure should be done by free choice. Laws and force are counter productive to efficiency

.
no bro imagine the pure anarchy of no laws - it is not "counter productive to efficiency"

People shouldn't be punished for living the way they want to live and not according to your mess-with-other-people's-life ethos.

so if people want to drive through residential areas at 120 MPH that ok with u? or want to sell crack to schoolchildren that ok 2?

-----------------------------

Let me get this straight. You want to ban ethanol

,want the truth about ethanol to be widely known.

force people to buy green energy

no, force power companies to buy excess green NRG instead of using monopoly powers to suppress it. using monopoly powers to hurt consumers is another reason not to allow only market forces to shape the market.

outlaw nuclear power

some1 is getting rich by taking risks with our environment. so we pay the risks for no gain - i don't like it because there r alternatives. it also encourages use of Depleted uranium which i believe is extra bad news.

force people to paint their roof white

in certain places yes - just like u would force them to get planning permission or use safer electrical systems.

and buy solar

no although a small subsidy to help encourage is not a bad thing?

raise the price of gas

yes it is artificially high IMO.

raise taxes

no lower taxes and slash military spending,

tax imports

label import distance

but for GM foods you just want a label on it?

sir u r quite right with this 1. a full labelling of all GM food is necessary - just like UK people mostly just stopped buying it so supermarkets declared themselves GM free. being the control freak that i am, i would ban it what do u suggest here?


thanks for the GM food breakdown - totally agree - we never buy it because in australia it must be labelled.

When you have a government body of scientists that is owned by government and given policy guidance on what to produce by government, then their reports and findings are fundamentally biased and untrustworthy. This applies to the FDA, the IPCC, or any other government agency.

fully agree but believe that we do need organised laws not just " do-whatever-because-laws-and-force-r-wrong". makes a good sound byte but that all really.
good we agree on some things.

[losturmarbles]

ok we wil have to agree to disagree here

.
no bro imagine the pure anarchy of no laws - it is not "counter productive to efficiency"

so if people want to drive through residential areas at 120 MPH that ok with u? or want to sell crack to schoolchildren that ok 2?

-----------------------------

,want the truth about ethanol to be widely known. no, force power companies to buy excess green NRG instead of using monopoly powers to suppress it. using monopoly powers to hurt consumers is another reason not to allow only market forces to shape the market. some1 is getting rich by taking risks with our environment. so we pay the risks for no gain - i don't like it because there r alternatives. it also encourages use of Depleted uranium which i believe is extra bad news.

in certain places yes - just like u would force them to get planning permission or use safer electrical systems.

no although a small subsidy to help encourage is not a bad thing? yes it is artificially high IMO. no lower taxes and slash military spending, label import distance sir u r quite right with this 1. a full labelling of all GM food is necessary - just like UK people mostly just stopped buying it so supermarkets declared themselves GM free. being the control freak that i am, i would ban it what do u suggest here?


thanks for the GM food breakdown - totally agree - we never buy it because in australia it must be labelled.



fully agree but believe that we do need organised laws not just " do-whatever-because-laws-and-force-r-wrong". makes a good sound byte but that all really.
good we agree on some things.

I'm not an advocate of anarchy. I believe government has a role and that is to enforce The Law. The Law as described here. As long as an individual isn't infringing on the life and liberty of another individual, then any so-called law that restricts them is nothing but a perversion of the law and a counter to freedom. And that is the fundamental problem, people don't believe in freedom.

To be clear, I wasn't really taking a position on any of the issues you listed. I was only clarifying your position and trying to get you to realize the inconsistency in your stance.
There's no easy answers. I believe you and most people that support your views genuinely want to make the world a better place. But as long as we allow the government to subvert it's role and make laws and regulations to enforce the will of the corporations, the world will suffer and we will become bigger captives of the corporatocracy.