Austria sues European Union, claiming natural gas and nuclear energy are not 'green'

[Gyre]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No way this isn't a parody account of some sick puppy.

 

[Paulsie]

Hey Heidi, you are once again resorting to your usual logical fallacies.

Nobody said CO2 was responsible for driving temperature millions of years ago.

This is a strawman argument.

The CO2 vs temperature graph comparison showed CO2 is not historically correlated to temperature movement. YOU are making it into strawman by creating argument that was not there in the fistr place.

No it's not.

There is over 99% scientific consensus.

You have no authority to declare it as inconclusive based on your negligible understanding of the subject matter.

This is dunning-kruger at it's finest.

The 99% consensus was presented AFTER my post. Your post is, once again, disingenuous and utterly dishonest.

 

[Ponderer]

Hey Heidi, you are once again resorting to your usual logical fallacies.


The CO2 vs temperature graph comparison showed CO2 is not historically correlated to temperature movement. YOU are making it into strawman by creating argument that was not there in the fistr place.


The 99% consensus was presented AFTER my post. Your post is, once again disingenious and dishonest.

Remember you are dealing with a climate cultist.
Sense and reason fall on deaf ears.

 

[Paulsie]

Remember you are dealing with a climate cultist.
Sense and reason fall on deaf ears.

Heidi can be a climate cultist and stick with her convictions, but using Dunning-Kruger is a different story.

 

[Ponderer]

Heidi can be a climate cultist and stick with her convictions, but using Dunning-Kruger is a different story.

The irony of accusing you of suffering from Dunning-Kruger is breathtaking.
It is he that is suffering from it - badly.
Typical of a cultist though.

 

[tetrasect]

Hey Heidi, you are once again resorting to your usual logical fallacies.


The CO2 vs temperature graph comparison showed CO2 is not historically correlated to temperature movement. YOU are making it into strawman by creating argument that was not there in the fistr place.

You're not making any sense. It literally says "No Evidence of CO2 driving temperature".

The 99% consensus was presented AFTER my post. Your post is, once again, disingenuous and utterly dishonest.

Huh? Pretty sure I posted this 2 weeks ago:

Scientific consensus on causation: Academic studies of scientific agreement on human-caused global warming among climate experts (2010–2015) reflect that the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science.[1] A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%,[2] and a 2021 study concluded that consensus exceeded 99%.[3] Another 2021 study found that 98.7% of climate experts indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity.[4]

 

[Paulsie]

Huh? Pretty sure I posted this 2 weeks ago:

Maybe I just don't care about your posts that much.

 

[Ponderer]

Just checking in on the climate cultists.
How y'all doing.
Still keeping the faith?
Still strong in your belief there's a "climate crises"?
Still strong in your belief that Carbon Emissions are causing "the climate to change" and/or "is warming the planet"?
Still strong in your belief that Carbon Emissions constitute an existential threat?

 

[tetrasect]

Just checking in on the climate cultists.
How y'all doing.
Still keeping the faith?
Still strong in your belief there's a "climate crises"?
Still strong in your belief that Carbon Emissions are causing "the climate to change" and/or is "warming the planet"?
Still strong in your belief that Carbon Emissions constitute an existential threat?

You're the cultists.

Cult:
A religious group, whose beliefs are considered extreme or strange by many people.

 

[Ponderer]

#notacult

 

[tetrasect]

#notacult

Yes, you thinking Andrew Bolt and Tucker Carlson are "voices of reason" is more proof that you're a cultist.

 

[3WA]

Just checking in on the climate cultists.
How y'all doing.
Still keeping the faith?
Still strong in your belief there's a "climate crises"?
Still strong in your belief that Carbon Emissions are causing "the climate to change" and/or "is warming the planet"?
Still strong in your belief that Carbon Emissions constitute an existential threat?

Hi Ponderer!

 

[ToxicBunny]

Yes, you thinking Andrew Bolt and Tucker Carlson are "voices of reason" is more proof that you're a cultist.

A special kind of cultist who can't rub 2 neurons together...

 

[tetrasect]

A special kind of cultist who can't rub 2 neurons together...

Cult of stupidity.

Proudly opposed to "intellectuals".

 

[Swa]

There is no peer review.

I literally said that in the post you replied to.

Learn to comprehend basic English before responding to my posts in the future, thanks.

Please explain what your concept of peer review is. Also there are many points you mention which do not affect legitimacy but are merely opinionated.

Looks like we have another 3rd grader in our midst.

Care to explain what's going on in this picture and why you think it's wrong?

Maybe you did not read properly the first time so I'll say it again. ALL gasses absorb and emit light, or electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum. It's only the spectra that's different. If they did not they would be completely inert. We also did not use heat in the wrong way as it is a nomenclature for kinetic energy and gasses don't just possess a heat component when they transfer energy over a boundary. Now the part you completely seem to miss is that while the main mechanisms may differ they are all involved in the "heat" effect. ALL gasses have a heat capacity all will contribute to preserving, storing and transferring it. The concept of a greenhouse gas is thus an arbitrary one in a mixed environment where all gasses contribute.

I see nobody responded to the little factoid that while the sun has a cycle it's not an accurate carbon copy repeat, even having it's own seasons and climate. I don't know why it's so hard to imagine that we have this big thing in the sky providing all our energy that can determine our climate. The big issue isn't even the science itself. Science can tell us how to do something but it can't tell us that we should be doing it.

Nobody can make heads or tails what the graphs are really telling us. There's always been a sharp increase in temperatures followed by a sharp drop. The last mini ice age is still unexplained. From the looks of it there's still an unknown phenomenon that caused a rapid drop in temperatures and we are simply in a rebound phase. But that's only looking at the last million years or so. If we look at the supposed 4 billion year history of earth there's absolutely no correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures. So why even supposing we can do something should we be doing anything? In fact we are at unprecedented low levels of both so if anything if CO2 was really a greenhouse gas we should be upping the quantity to avoid falling into another global ice age.

You're attempting to absolve humans from the equation by turning it into some kind of chicken and egg scenario. It doesn't work that way.

Yes, CO2 is released and absorbed naturally. Those are called fluctuations. CO2 by humans is only released and adds to the total CO2 which nature cannot absorb fast enough (seeing as we chopped down most of the earths forests etc), thus heating the planet. It's a delicate system and a small change can cause a coalescing affect (for instance by melting ice which releases pockets of methane gas that has been trapped for millions of years, evaporating water which has a much more potent greenhouse effect than CO2 and so on).

The paper you quoted does not dispute this.

In fact, if you look at my previous post, the papers that cite your paper cite it as saying "CO2 is the major contributor to global warming".

And one of those papers even calculates CO2 to be responsible for around 50% of global warming.

It's really strange to me that you are linking to a paper that says one thing while trying to argue another.

Err... trees and plants are not the major users of CO2. Most of our oxygen comes from sea plants and algae. The oceans are much more sensitive to changes in temperature and their ability to absorb CO2 so it is kinda a "chicken and egg" scenario. You also have a major misunderstanding of peer review and what's published in journals. Most of it does not concern whether climate change is real or not. It's much more nuanced concerning aspects of the environment or simply comes to the conclusion that no conclusions can be drawn.

Any normal person is in the position of agreeing with what scientists who dedicate their lives to studying climatology have to say.

We are not experts, they are.

If you think you can do better than those scientists then it's up to you to refute them.

But so far ponderer has only managed to show a complete lack of understanding even the most basic highschool level scientific principles.

These "refutations" do not even come close to being significant in any way, shape or form other than serving as a laughing stock for the rest of us.

And who are these experts? There are some on both sides of the fence. And even if there wasn't the climate hysteria crowd have exaggerated or quite simply been wrong so often they don't have any credibility left. Economist Paul Samuelson wrote "Wall Street indexes predicted nine out of the last five recessions". How many times have so-called "climate experts" been right? What's so astonishing is that we can actually make the prediction that their next prediction will most probably be wrong. What does that tell you and most importantly what does is tell you about your own faith in the "science"? You've swallowed the media cool-aid. The "consensus" is MSM political propaganda. It's not science, it's scientism.

3 Mile is not often mentioned because there were no deaths or major injuries.

Deaths from radiation or nuclear fallout are not something that's easily measured.

Just for interest sake - how many people have finish reading the 2000 page cross referenced summary of the science? I don't want to post it verbatim on the forum as it would be a pain.

Please post the pertinent points. Otherwise it's just information overload or argumentum ad tl;dr. If you can't do that then you yourself do not really understand it and are simply taking it on faith that the "science" is correct and proven.

If it leaks??? It's not liquid, it's not stored in barrels like an episode of the Simpsons. Nuclear waste is vitrified into a solid form, mixed with glass, coated in ceramics surrounded by thick concrete. They don't leak, the only time there has been an issue with possibility of leaking is from WW2 era testing and that was weaponised nuclear.
They are not the same thing either, a nuclear plant will not explode like a bomb and you cannot weaponise nuclear waste from power plants.

It isn't my words. Several nuclear storage sites are currently known to be leaking nuclear waste into the soil and others are starting to crack or have deteriorating insulation. It's not the immediate deaths from nuclear accidents that are the issue but the long term effect on the environment. With humanity taking up ever increasing areas of land we can't afford to lay any of it to waste, or maybe I'm just imagining that there's this big exclusion zone around a former nuclear plant.

 

[tetrasect]

Please explain what your concept of peer review is. Also there are many points you mention which do not affect legitimacy but are merely opinionated.

Read my previous posts where I exposed that journal accepting literal BS without any peer review. Don't feel like repeating myself ad nauseam.

Maybe you did not read properly the first time so I'll say it again. ALL gasses absorb and emit light, or electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum. It's only the spectra that's different. If they did not they would be completely inert. We also did not use heat in the wrong way as it is a nomenclature for kinetic energy and gasses don't just possess a heat component when they transfer energy over a boundary. Now the part you completely seem to miss is that while the main mechanisms may differ they are all involved in the "heat" effect. ALL gasses have a heat capacity all will contribute to preserving, storing and transferring it. The concept of a greenhouse gas is thus an arbitrary one in a mixed environment where all gasses contribute.

I see nobody responded to the little factoid that while the sun has a cycle it's not an accurate carbon copy repeat, even having it's own seasons and climate. I don't know why it's so hard to imagine that we have this big thing in the sky providing all our energy that can determine our climate. The big issue isn't even the science itself. Science can tell us how to do something but it can't tell us that we should be doing it.

Nobody can make heads or tails what the graphs are really telling us. There's always been a sharp increase in temperatures followed by a sharp drop. The last mini ice age is still unexplained. From the looks of it there's still an unknown phenomenon that caused a rapid drop in temperatures and we are simply in a rebound phase. But that's only looking at the last million years or so. If we look at the supposed 4 billion year history of earth there's absolutely no correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures. So why even supposing we can do something should we be doing anything? In fact we are at unprecedented low levels of both so if anything if CO2 was really a greenhouse gas we should be upping the quantity to avoid falling into another global ice age.

First of all, your claim that all gases emit light is absolutely and laughably false, you don't seem to know what "inert" means, ... actually there is just too much wrong with what you just said. Honestly not gonna waste my time going through all the BS you just spewed.

You obviously know sweet fckall about science and are just spitting out words which you do not know the meaning of.

Dunning-kruger to the max.

Err... trees and plants are not the major users of CO2.

Never said they were. Read my post again.

Most of our oxygen comes from sea plants and algae. The oceans are much more sensitive to changes in temperature and their ability to absorb CO2 so it is kinda a "chicken and egg" scenario. You also have a major misunderstanding of peer review and what's published in journals. Most of it does not concern whether climate change is real or not.

Yes, just like a paper on fluid dynamics doesn't talk about whether fluids are real or not. Everyone already knows they are. Except for you maybe.

It's much more nuanced concerning aspects of the environment or simply comes to the conclusion that no conclusions can be drawn.

Yet scientists do draw conclusions. Strange...

And who are these experts? There are some on both sides of the fence.

Yes, over 99% of them are on one side of the fence and less than 1% are on the other. Kind of like people outside an insane asylum vs those inside.

And even if there wasn't the climate hysteria crowd have exaggerated or quite simply been wrong so often they don't have any credibility left. Economist Paul Samuelson wrote "Wall Street indexes predicted nine out of the last five recessions". How many times have so-called "climate experts" been right? What's so astonishing is that we can actually make the prediction that their next prediction will most probably be wrong. What does that tell you and most importantly what does is tell you about your own faith in the "science"? You've swallowed the media cool-aid. The "consensus" is MSM political propaganda. It's not science, it's scientism.

Problem is you watch right-wing garbage content which has you convinced that Tucker Carlson is somehow a more legitimate authority on science than actual scientists are, and anyone who doesn't agree is some kind of MSM cultists. The irony is fking insane.

You have displayed nothing but a painfully poor understanding of even the most basic of scientific terms and concepts while proudly flaunting your ignorance as some kind of virtue in your contrived world where science is a religion and hard facts are MSM lies. To the rest of us you are just a clown who serves as a perfect example of dunning-kruger.

 

[Ponderer]

It's happening.
If the climate cultists in this thread still don't see this for what it is, then nothing will.

 

[3WA]

If the climate cultists in this thread still don't see this for what it is, then nothing will.

I see a herd of cows.

 

[Ponderer]

I see a herd of cows.

Not unlike the herd of climate cultists.

 

[Temujin]

It's happening.
If the climate cultists in this thread still don't see this for what it is, then nothing will.

Of course they won't, they genuinely believe paying more taxes to governments will literally change the weather