• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Renewable Energy Reported to Threaten Biodiversity

Buzz said:
WOW!! You just live in an alternate reality of your own making, don't you??
Click to expand...
One of us does.

You have made the most complete and sensable argument as to some place that is likely to need to spend more on countering the effects of global warming than traffic lights which has only fallen down as a result of looking at the actual situation on the ground. Just the write up had it your way.

But that shows that you understand my challenge. That you get the process.

That must mean that you are painfully aware that all other Alarmist posters here simply will not look at all at any particular place and any particular issue. That they obviously know it is an untenable position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Tim the plumber said:
One of us does.
Click to expand...
Yes, you do.
Tim the plumber said:
You have made the most complete and sensable argument as to someplace that is likely to need to spend more on countering the effects of global warming than traffic lights which have only fallen down as a result of looking at the actual situation on the ground. Just the write up had it your way.
Click to expand...
Oh... so you are backing off the statement that everyone on the other side of this debate is idiotically and constantly refusing to answer your questions. And that we are desparate and have no arguement. Obviously, that is a lie! And I would remind you that you had to move the goal-posts twice when I answered your question so you could falsely claim I was wrong. The truth of the matter is I did all the work and providied the evidence to prove you wrong. That you still can't admit that you were wrong says a lot about you.
Tim the plumber said:
But that shows that you understand my challenge. That you get the process.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand. And almost everyone else does as well.
Tim the plumber said:
That must mean that you are painfully aware that all other Alarmist posters here simply will not look at all at any particular place and any particular issue. That they obviously know it is an untenable position.
Click to expand...
 And this is just more BS. There are several here who have answered your stupid question. It is just than most of them didn't have the persistance like me to prove you wrong.

Yes, Tim... you live in an alternet reality of your own making.
 
Jack Hays said:
As far as I can tell you have no complaint other than a string of insults floating in the air, unmoored to any factual basis.
Click to expand...


I've provided the facts which have moored your disingenuity time and again. Your evasiveness and deception continue.
 
Buzz said:
Yes, you do.

Oh... so you are backing off the statement that everyone on the other side of this debate is idiotically and constantly refusing to answer your questions. And that we are desparate and have no arguement. Obviously, that is a lie! And I would remind you that you had to move the goal-posts twice when I answered your question so you could falsely claim I was wrong. The truth of the matter is I did all the work and providied the evidence to prove you wrong. That you still can't admit that you were wrong says a lot about you.

Yes, I understand. And almost everyone else does as well.
And this is just more BS. There are several here who have answered your stupid question. It is just than most of them didn't have the persistance like me to prove you wrong.

Yes, Tim... you live in an alternet reality of your own making.
Click to expand...


I have before persisted to no avail for lack of being given forthright and honest reply respective of my own. This poster will, like others, keep throwing his own diarrhea against the wall disguised in the body of as if genuine debate while all along disingenuous to the core. I just keep a record so that when it gets to a point such as you've come to, and another crap toss comes at me, I refer to past posting that demonstrates such lack of honest debate and go no further, though I've done most congenially in the past, but no longer. One must persist to begin with, though, to prove out debaters that do nothing but give you the runaround.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Why are so many scientists fighting against your position in your opinion?
Click to expand...



I don't do 17-minute AV info-spam. If you can't state your own position in your own words and give a link to evidence of fact that supports your position, that is not encyclopedic (info-spam) w/o specifying location of pertinent info, you're not worth anybody's time. You can't even provide proof of how many is "many" and you're nearest rest of claim, that is visible, is to do with renewable energy, not the IPCC position on AGW.
 
bluesmoke said:
I don't do 17-minute AV info-spam. If you can't state your own position in your own words and give a link to evidence of fact that supports your position, that is not encyclopedic (info-spam) w/o specifying location of pertinent info, you're not worth anybody's time. You can't even provide proof of how many is "many" and you're nearest rest of claim, that is visible, is to do with renewable energy, not the IPCC position on AGW.
Click to expand...
You think a TED talk is an AV info-spam?
I can summarize the talk for you.
A lifetime environmentalist, ran the numbers, and has concluded that renewables alone cannot save the planet.
I disagree, in as much as renewables without some type of massive seasonal energy storage cannot save the planet.
I think such storage is possible, but the likely carrier in man made hydrocarbons.
 
Jack Hays said:
No, you have not. Perhaps you have confused me with another poster?
Click to expand...


Oh, no. I have you on record of various thread I've referenced to you time before. Perhaps you're confusing yourself with another person.
 
longview said:
You think a TED talk is an AV info-spam?
I can summarize the talk for you.
A lifetime environmentalist, ran the numbers, and has concluded that renewables alone cannot save the planet.
I disagree, in as much as renewables without some type of massive seasonal energy storage cannot save the planet.
I think such storage is possible, but the likely carrier in man made hydrocarbons.
Click to expand...


I agree. Renewables alone cannot save the planet. Seasonal energy storage is part and parcel to renewable energy generation to store the overage for "off-season" use, as is done now with all energy production, which dictates next season production levels.

So, there you are, that's all you had to do. Say what you meant in your own words and if I wanted to waste my time on 17 minutes to find the support for what you say I could have. But you said enough that I already knew and could otherwise Google quicker than wasting my time on your info-spam.
 
bluesmoke said:
I agree. Renewables alone cannot save the planet. Seasonal energy storage is part and parcel to renewable energy generation to store the overage for "off-season" use, as is done now with all energy production, which dictates next season production levels.

So, there you are, that's all you had to do. Say what you meant in your own words and if I wanted to waste my time on 17 minutes to find the support for what you say I could have. But you said enough that I already knew and could otherwise Google quicker than wasting my time on your info-spam.
Click to expand...
Still TED talks are not spam, and are mostly apolitical.
( I did not post the talk, but did watch it, it was a good talk, and the material is very relevant if you are interested in the topic!)
Seasonal energy storage, currently applies to hydroelectric, what I speaking of is that wind and
solar both have periods of great production, when demands are low, usually Spring and Fall,
when heating and cooling requirements are low, but it is usually windy, and with plenty of sunny days.
Hydrocarbon storage, would allow Spring and Fall surplus, to be seasonally moved to cover
Winter and Summer higher demands, and more directly be used for transport fuels.
 
Jack Hays said:
I always am.
Click to expand...
No, you are not!! Like when you insist that Anthony Watts doesn't advertise because of an old out-dated fax page all while you completely ignore numerous highly profitable ads on his website.
 
Buzz said:
No, you are not!! Like when you insist that Anthony Watts doesn't advertise because of an old out-dated fax page all while you completely ignore numerous highly profitable ads on his website.
Click to expand...
Nope. You're swinging after the bell. This matter has already been concluded.
 
Jack Hays said:
Nope. You're swinging after the bell. This matter has already been concluded.
Click to expand...
So... you are just going to continue to ignore all the obvious advertisements on Watts' website and insist on repeatedly lying about it.
:rolleyes:
No surprise there.
 
Buzz said:
So... you are just going to continue to ignore all the obvious advertisements on Watts' website and insist on repeatedly lying about it.
:rolleyes:
No surprise there.
Click to expand...
The advertisements were explained. You're in denial.
 
Jack Hays said:
The advertisements were explained. You're in denial.
Click to expand...
Really? Quote the part that explains a couple of tumblr ads, a Jetpack ad, a Crowd Signal ad, and a "recommended" list full of clickbait.
 
Jack Hays said:
Gregory Wrightstone: exposing the mass extinction lie | Watts ...
wattsupwiththat.com › 2019/05/27 › gregory-wrightsto...

May 27, 2019 — “Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist with more than 35 years of experience researching and studying various aspects of the Earth's processes. He ...
Click to expand...

Gee, citing a notorious climate change denier is not really the way to accurately convey what science has to say. Does he deny cigarettes cause cancer too?

medium.com

It’s Easy to be Tricked by a Climate Denier

Here’s what to watch out for…
medium.com medium.com
 
Buzz said:
Really? Quote the part that explains a couple of tumblr ads, a Jetpack ad, a Crowd Signal ad, and a "recommended" list full of clickbait.
Click to expand...
Q. Do you accept paid advertising?

A. Generally no, as it conflicts with the wordpress.com ad sharing program. There are some ads on WUWT’s right sidebar for my own business interests and for some Amazon books. Occasionally WUWT may highlight a product or service of interest, or promote a cause that needs funding such as the 50 to 1 project, but WUWT takes no portion of these promotions and they are done as a community service.
 
Jack Hays said:
IUCN data are credible.
Graph of Species Extinctions by Decade, from the Red List
Click to expand...

Thanks, but this is Wrightstone again, presenting the IUCN data he likes in the way he likes. Do you have a more credible source making the same claim that I can check out?
 
skeptic llc said:
Thanks, but this is Wrightstone again, presenting the IUCN data he likes in the way he likes. Do you have a more credible source making the same claim that I can check out?
Click to expand...
You could consult the IUCN website yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom