Global warming

  • @jammyjaybird said in Global warming:

    The EPA says that Trump’s rollback of coal regulations will result in “between 470 and 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030” and “48,000 new cases of exacerbated asthma and at least 21,000 new missed days of school annually by 2030.”

    That’s the EPA’s own analysis.

    If the EPA and the entire left-tard “renewable energy” chorus were serious about reducing our carbon footprint and reducing the mortality rate of all energy sources they’d be pushing for a wholesale shift to nuclear energy worldwide:

  • So now it turns out that Trump was barking up the wrong tree when he asked the Russians, publicly, to find the Hildebeast’s missing emails. He knew the DOJ / FBi sure as hell weren’t interested in doing so. He should have asked the Chinese, since they’re the ones that actually have them. You would think his puppet master, Mr. Putin, would have let him know through a “back channel” or something. Embarrassing… (/sarc) Source:


    “Polluted air may impede cognitive ability as people become older, especially for less educated men,” the authors say.

  • Gas and nuclear power are safer per unit of energy than many non-conventional energy sources such as wind and solar. How can that be? The inputs to produce these energy sources have to be taken into account. Most “zero emissions” energy sources are actually just “elsewhere emissions” sources and produce things like a huge toxic lake in China. If you are curious here’s a surprising analysis and explanation of the relative hazards of our energy sources from a risk accounting standpoint:


    This climate visualization shows temperature anomalies by country from 1880 through 2017, based on data from NASA.

    From the article: The latest visualization of the Earth heating up was built by Antti Lipponen, a research scientist at the Finnish Meteorological Institute, and it has caught fire. Just since Saturday, it has been shared 16,000 times on Twitter. It reveals the majority of countries have warmed by at least one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), and all but one (Kiribati) have warmed by at least 0.5 degrees (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 1800s.

  • I’ve been saying for years (decades actually) that the answer to our energy problems lies in clean, safe nuclear power. I am confident the carbon dioxide = pollution hoax is a backdoor method to tax us on breathing…well, okay…taxing us just on exhaling. Let’s not forget that Algore and the usual suspects stood to make obscene amounts of money on trading “carbon credits” (i.e. monetizing their fear mongering). However, a lot of otherwise intelligent people (who should know better) have jumped on the CO2 is poison bandwagon too and even natural gas isn’t good enough for them. Now MIT has confirmed my position.

    From the MIT report, “The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World”: “While a variety of low- or zerocarbon technologies can be employed in various combinations, our analysis shows the potential contribution nuclear can make as a dispatchable low-carbon technology. Without that contribution, the cost of achieving deep decarbonization targets increases significantly (see Figure E.1, left column). The least-cost portfolios include an important share for nuclear, the magnitude of which significantly grows as the cost of nuclear drops.”

    One of the reasons we have thrived as a species is the availability of abundant inexpensive energy. Take that away and more humans will die, plain and simple. Now, if the anti-carbon left comes out against the stance outlined in the MIT study, it will reveal that they aren’t interested in actually reducing carbon emissions while maintaining our current energy supply. It will add more weight to the argument that what the left really wants is a net reduction in human life on the planet (as if their support for abortion on demand and non-reproductive sex didn’t show us that already).


    It’s real, and it exists even when political affiliation is controlled for.

    Among Democrats alone, there’s a 20 pt gap between whites and non-whites on the question of whether taking action on global warming should be a top priority for Congress and the president.

    Very interesting.

  • @jammyjaybird So what does this racial gap on “Gore-bull warming” tell us? That the majority of whites, minus “wonky white men” are more skeptical? Or does it tell us that ethnic minorities are more easily swayed with “wonky white men’s” settled science? To me is shows that we have divisions across racial lines (duh) that the ruling elite will try to maintain and capitalize on. But despite their best efforts to keep “Gore-bull” warming on life support and the writer’s best efforts to skew the data to support his position (From the article “Note: I’m using an average of two years because individual years have relatively small subsample sizes.”), whatever that position is supposed to be, the trend shows a decline / leveling off in the number of true believers. Perhaps “Gore-bull warming” isn’t as dire as some people would have us believe? See this: Now, about the upcoming grand solar minimum:

  • @jammyjaybird only poor people.

  • @jammyjaybird interesting that you people invariably reduce everything to one of three things:
    material wealth

  • @bem My previous three comments on this thread were about falling human intelligence, rising global temperature readings, and premature death.
    If you’re gonna come at me, at least be accurate.


    Associating “Race” and “Climate” is absurd, and consistent with liberal dogma. I mock your steadfast adherence to it. That’s all.

  • @bem I didn’t write the article, snowflake. I just linked it. Aim your butthurt elsewhere.

  • @jammyjaybird
    My previous three comments on this thread were about falling human intelligence, rising global temperature readings, and premature death. If you’re gonna come at me, at least be accurate.

    Well, let’s see here. You have a long train of posts here and on various other threads that definitively prove the theory of “falling human intelligence”…at least in your case. If “rising global temperatures” are real (and they aren’t, see this:, you and your fellow travelers hot air could be implicated as a key factor causing it. And if you keep hyperventilating over dogmatic leftist non-issues and Menschian conspiracy theories, yeah, it may lead to your “premature death” (especially if you start attending “protests”). XD

  • @jammyjaybird said in Global warming:

    @bem I didn’t write the article, snowflake. I just linked it. Aim your butthurt elsewhere.

    I didn’t see any “butthurt” from anyone other than you. The “snowflake” jab is just more Scamming Jamster projection.

  • “Kids Say the Darndest Things”… Because Climate Change. Only in the People’s Republic of Kalifornia…well okay, not any more. Stupid is contagious worldwide. Let’s introduce a little levity and truth to the discussion:

  • China is vying for worldwide supremacy and they are doing so more from an economic standpoint than a military one…so far. They aren’t encumbered by the same restrictions the West places on itself environmentally which adds to their competitive advantage. Despite all the rumblings and ruminations from the left about Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods, this tack may well slow down the environmental impact in China. They burn a lot of coal to make things consumers don’t need, but buy anyhow all too often with money they don’t have and tariffs may have a chilling effect on that. But no matter what, the Chinese intend to keep right on burning coal, while the West tries to hamstring themselves with “sustainable” (i.e. expensive and unreliable) energy sources. Here’s the deal:

  • @boothe Renewable energy isn’t the bee’s knees yet, but it’s worth working on. I think it would be a bit further along without the militant starry-eyed-ness surrounding it, actually.

  • @ransom I think that tax credits and government mandates pushed renewables into the forefront long before they were economically viable. When the free market is allowed to work you weed out the companies like Solyndra, SunPower and Evergreen Solar without imposing a burden on the tax payer. The truly innovative and competitive companies not only survive, they thrive. But by propping up these make believe companies with heavy infusions of tax money, you create a system sure to be rife with waste, fraud and abuse…just like its creator, BigGov. Wind and solar are great as long as the sun is shining and the wind is blowing when you need the generating capacity. But what do you do with that energy when you don’t need it? How do you store it on a large scale? We don’t have the battery capacity for that yet. Sure, you can use pumped storage facilities, but there are only a small percentage of places with the topography to support that. And since the Taum Sauk upper reservoir failure not too many communities want one in their backyard and understandably so. It’s true that on a smaller scale, you can set up a solar installation, battery bank and charger / inverter to store excess generation. But it’s really only viable either where bringing in utility power would be prohibitively expensive such as a wilderness home or…with tax subsidies. That may change in the future, but for right now unless you’re a wealthy virtue signaler, it doesn’t make financial sense.

  • Now about that “tipping point” the high priests of climate mysticism science decried ten years ago, saying there would be no summer Arctic sea ice by now: Hint: Don’t let “climate scientists” pick stocks or mutual funds for your 401K…unless you don’t mind living under a bridge and collecting pop cans in your grocery cart.

Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to A Kings Castle was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.