Wow! I hadn't thought of that.
Deal With Climate Change Now, Or America Will Face Unprecedented Southern Immigration
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
Wow! I hadn't thought of that.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello T. A. Gardner,
The OP doesn't claim it is. The OP does not propose that migration is the answer to poverty OR global warming.
The essence of the OP is being totally missed in your post.
We face an either / or situation.
Either we do (a) OR we will get (b).
There is no discussion about whether we should allow immigration. That is not the point.
The point is if we don't do something about climate change now, we will face increased immigration in a few decades.
OK, finally I see your point. You think there is no problem and there will be no problem. And to back this up you submit that experts have been wrong in the past at times so they should never be believed. Very absurd. I presume there are times when you do listen to experts. This just isn't one of them.
You're simply denying that we face this either-or situation in the first place.
I gotcha.
OK, that makes sense that you would take that position.
You don't have to deal with a problem if there is no problem, so you simply deny that the problem exists. Easy peazy. I only wish that was an effective solution.
Well, you are entitled to any position you like, but climate change is not dependent upon whether or not you believe in it. The climate is going to just keep on changing unless we change.
And we can change. We are constantly changing. We haven't been very good at forcing change because we face a global catastrophe, but we are going to have to learn how to do it. That would be a big enough challenge if we had everybody working towards the solution, It becomes even bigger if we have to work around a bunch of deniers who simply refuse to coordinate with the rest of the planet. No matter. We will continue to work towards a solution whether you help or not. We'd really like to have your help with this but if we can't have it we will have to do what we can without you. We really don't have another choice. If we did we would be glad to not face this looming crisis, but we have to accept the reality of it. There is no planet B.
Cherry-picked examples of each type of power specifically chosen to support a narrative. Palo Verde first came online in 1986. No matter what the cost back then was, the cost to build a similar plant today would be more than the inflation-adjusted cost back then. Regulation has become more expensive. Ivanpah, which is not PV, and uses mirrors to heat boilers for steam, was a step in the right direction, but that design is no longer cost-effective. All plans to build anything new like it have been scrapped due to the reduction in the cost of PV panels. But nice job of using what you had to make your point. Select one of the most cost-effective nuke plants and compare it to an outdated not-cost-efective solar plant. Such trickery makes a nice post, but it doesn't make a good basis for policy. Also, thanks for the challenge to learn. I was not previously familiar with either plant. Didn't take me long to bone up and find out why your argument was flawed.
Pathetic ad hominem attack noted. You've tried a red herring, didn't work, now you're on to an ad hominem. No big surprise. If you don't have a good enough argument for it to stand on it's own merit it becomes appealing to try such distractions to try to throw the reader off. It's not appreciated. But what else can you do? You have a losing argument in the first place. A losing argument is a losing argument no matter how it is presented.
If only it were that simple.
The OP doesn't claim it is. The OP does not propose that migration is the answer to poverty OR global warming.
The essence of the OP is being totally missed in your post.
We face an either / or situation.
Either we do (a) OR we will get (b).
There is no discussion about whether we should allow immigration. That is not the point.
The point is if we don't do something about climate change now, we will face increased immigration in a few decades.
OK, finally I see your point. You think there is no problem and there will be no problem. And to back this up you submit that experts have been wrong in the past at times so they should never be believed. Very absurd. I presume there are times when you do listen to experts. This just isn't one of them.
You're simply denying that we face this either-or situation in the first place.
I gotcha.
OK, that makes sense that you would take that position.
You don't have to deal with a problem if there is no problem, so you simply deny that the problem exists. Easy peazy. I only wish that was an effective solution.
Well, you are entitled to any position you like, but climate change is not dependent upon whether or not you believe in it. The climate is going to just keep on changing unless we change.
And we can change. We are constantly changing. We haven't been very good at forcing change because we face a global catastrophe, but we are going to have to learn how to do it. That would be a big enough challenge if we had everybody working towards the solution, It becomes even bigger if we have to work around a bunch of deniers who simply refuse to coordinate with the rest of the planet. No matter. We will continue to work towards a solution whether you help or not. We'd really like to have your help with this but if we can't have it we will have to do what we can without you. We really don't have another choice. If we did we would be glad to not face this looming crisis, but we have to accept the reality of it. There is no planet B.
Cherry-picked examples of each type of power specifically chosen to support a narrative. Palo Verde first came online in 1986. No matter what the cost back then was, the cost to build a similar plant today would be more than the inflation-adjusted cost back then. Regulation has become more expensive. Ivanpah, which is not PV, and uses mirrors to heat boilers for steam, was a step in the right direction, but that design is no longer cost-effective. All plans to build anything new like it have been scrapped due to the reduction in the cost of PV panels. But nice job of using what you had to make your point. Select one of the most cost-effective nuke plants and compare it to an outdated not-cost-efective solar plant. Such trickery makes a nice post, but it doesn't make a good basis for policy. Also, thanks for the challenge to learn. I was not previously familiar with either plant. Didn't take me long to bone up and find out why your argument was flawed.
Pathetic ad hominem attack noted. You've tried a red herring, didn't work, now you're on to an ad hominem. No big surprise. If you don't have a good enough argument for it to stand on it's own merit it becomes appealing to try such distractions to try to throw the reader off. It's not appreciated. But what else can you do? You have a losing argument in the first place. A losing argument is a losing argument no matter how it is presented.
If only it were that simple.
Last edited:
American Man
Verified User
You're a trained scientist?
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
One of the problems causing low efficiency with the Ivanpah style of solar power generation comes from the start-up each morning.
This design uses mirrors to focus and concentrate the energy of the sun onto boilers which produce steam, which is used to run turbines to generate electricity. That's all fine and well after it's up and running, but each night the boilers cool. Every morning, in order to get the plant up and running quicker, natural gas is used to get the boilers up to temperature in order to be ready to switch over to the energy of the sun, thus maximizing the number of hours of solar power generation per day.
I wonder if they considered insulation.
Perhaps the efficiency of the plant could be improved if movable insulation surrounding the boilers could be shifted into place at the end of each day while the boilers are still hot. This would act to prevent heat loss during the night. Then, each morning, the insulation would be removed when there is enough sunlight to resume warming.
Probably not practical, and it seems such a straightforward idea that they must have considered it and run analysis.
Hopefully!
This design uses mirrors to focus and concentrate the energy of the sun onto boilers which produce steam, which is used to run turbines to generate electricity. That's all fine and well after it's up and running, but each night the boilers cool. Every morning, in order to get the plant up and running quicker, natural gas is used to get the boilers up to temperature in order to be ready to switch over to the energy of the sun, thus maximizing the number of hours of solar power generation per day.
I wonder if they considered insulation.
Perhaps the efficiency of the plant could be improved if movable insulation surrounding the boilers could be shifted into place at the end of each day while the boilers are still hot. This would act to prevent heat loss during the night. Then, each morning, the insulation would be removed when there is enough sunlight to resume warming.
Probably not practical, and it seems such a straightforward idea that they must have considered it and run analysis.
Hopefully!
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
you do realize climate change is cyclical, right?......its been doing this for hundreds of thousands of years, right on schedule......why pretend you can control it.......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
if we built a wall around Wales and filled it with water, would it keep the rest of the third world from flooding?.....
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Yes.
So legalize over 20 million ILLEGALS, tell the people waiting in line tough shit and destroy our economy? That's a moronic solution snowflake.
Overpopulation; aother moronic leftist meme lacking in facts and common sense.
29% of Earth is land mass. Of that 29% humans occupy less than 2 to 3% of that area. Of the remaining land mass, about 40% is pure wilderness. 14% is true desert and 15% has desert like characteristics. 9% is Antarctica. Most of the remaining 22% are agricultural areas.
The notion that man is causing the planet to heat up based on CO2 that amounts to 0.0314% of the gas in oxygen can only be believed by morons.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
How to deal with an inescapable either/or situation:
Deny it exists!
Deny it exists!
American Man
Verified User
Are you?
I'm not a scientist, but the difference is that I don't pretend to act qualified to dismiss scientific consensus. I'm not arrogant enough to think that a quick perusing of a few articles makes me qualified to dismiss climate science or evolution or whatever topic conservatives hate these days.
Iolo/Penderyn
Verified User
Another glaring lie; that there is scientific consensus that MAN is causing the planet to warm. That is what we used to call quackery. With todays uneducated dolts, it is science dontchyaknow!
But you appear to be DUMB and DISHONEST enough to parrot the lie that we are dismissing climate change simply because we don't buy into the lie filled narrative that man is causing it.
I wish you could be less stupid and dishonest. Really I do.
How can anyone reply to such sophistication!
Lie filled Marxist moron thinks he is sophisticated.
Iolo/Penderyn
Verified User
Lie filled Marxist moron thinks he is sophisticated.
Most people, indeed most apes and hens, are more sophisticated than trump's nazi peasant following. When you grow up, see if someone will allow you a passport, there's a good muggins.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
How to deal with climate change, part II:
Get really rude with the people you disagree with.
That is certain to change life-threatening physical situations found to be something you don't want to face.
Get really rude with the people you disagree with.
That is certain to change life-threatening physical situations found to be something you don't want to face.
When posts get stupider, you will make them.Satanic moron? Is there somebody you can convince of that?