How old were you when you realized that "manmade climate change" was total nonsense?

Not on Anon Babble, shill.

comparing natural to man-made CO2

Oh wait, your bullshit chart excludes the last 2 centuries

It's almost as if you have no idea what you are talking about.

comparing natural to man-made CO2

This is the same shit you post against the vaxx. Bunch of memes and pseudoscientific claims.

Get fucked, shill.

Ok, schizo.

Humans are responsible for just 5% of annual CO2 output into the atmosphere.

You were saying?

You've never heard of humans?

Clean your glasses, faggot.

And if CO2 and temps had zero to do with each other for millions of years, why does the last 2 centuries matter so much, but the previous several million dont?

Die, shill.

newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/

read this, too.

usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/07/09/co2-amount-proportion-greenhouse-gases-fact-check/74195690007/

LoL first paragraph cherry picking and ignoring millions of years prior.

"Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years."

Nice try.

LoL MSM propaganda. Try harder.

20-21, I’m 32 now

How old were you when you learned that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy?

It really doesn't matter if anthropogenic climate change is happening to the degree some claim or has no effect. Whether it is or isn't the technologies that either resolve this issue or prohibit it in the first place are disproportionally suppressed or simply not employed in an organized way.

So if it is happening, the institutions clearly have the capability to stop it by literally painting some roofs white or building nuclear or developing better high energy sources like fusion. If it isn't happening, the entire topic is yet another smokescreen in the sciences designed to prevent the deployment of technologies that better civilization.

I will trust the scientists and politicians when they stop cutting down rainforests and taking private jets to expensive, carbon demanding events, in an age where Zoom exists. I simply cannot take them seriously and it looks like such an obvious grift, all the more so since they are abandoning nuclear power.

Want some crutons with that word salad? Srsly not gonna bother to try and un-pretzel that I've never even been to junior college bullshit. Learn to communicate better.

/thread

climate change is a "debate"

lol flat earther

he flew in a plane

it isn't real

ah ha ha ha ha HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Learn to communicate better

lmaooo ok illiterate zoomer

Nuclear is making a comeback, IDGAF what the elites do as long as they leave us the fuck alone and there were too many trees depleting the CO2 levels as 180 to 300ppm is dangerously low for plant life. Just coincidentally humans showed right on time to cut the forests back.

Pay close attention to the CO2 levels. Notice them steadily dropping since the plants learned to become trees and grow taller than a meter or three.

Yes. Literally, Yes, that is correct. We have Zoom. Climate scientists and politicians can use zoom. And they certainly to not have to level a fucking rainforest for it. Why are you simping for oligarchs?

>climate change is a "debate"

lol flat earther

Climate change is a theory.
lol nice strawman. Faggot.

This.

t.irony

This shows only the northern hemisphere and cannot be used to disprove GLOBAL warming.

The average temperatures of these periods has been well studied and explained. The sun is not responsible for global warming. Pic related.

Irrelevant. If your run drains at a rate of 1 gallon per minute and fills at a rate of 1.05 gallons per minute does the water level a) decrease b) remain constant c) increase?

That shows that the natural cycle is stable. If you need further proof that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide then just look to the carbon isotopes in the atmosphere. The sharp decrease in carbon-13 proves that human emissions are responsible.

Retard takes.

appeal to authority

We're not having a discourse. There is no room for opinion or embellishment or insults.

You are full of shit and start threads like this to either spread lies or just to draw some traffic on a slow tuesday.

You suck cock for petroleum money. One day, you will be hunted down for your lies while the world burns.

The first hint was when all the dumb shit predictions failed to come to pass. The whole X will be underwater by 1970, 1990, 2000, 2012, type of shit.

The second hint was when I looked at their models when I was getting into modeling and discovered 95% of models had no driving function (solar power) and were therefore absolute shite. The one that did was has the most absurd predictions, so essentially I learned that climate scientists as a whole couldn't into models and math. (and I do WAY more complicated modeling than they do at work).

Of course there was the cherry on the top of having A FUCKING LITTLE GIRL as their spokesperson. Like god damn would I be embarrassed as fuck as a professional to be represented by a downie girl. I don't know how climate fags take that shame.

That's on top of everyone misrepresenting shit and lying their asses off so they can get more political power with NO SOLUTIONS. It's always magic "gimme money" shit, no solutions. The very faggots who spew this shit are anti-nuclear, which is the CLEAR stopgap to getting us from shit oil/coal into clean renewables, and would be perfect for modulating supply of said renewables when the sun is on the other side of the planet and wind isn't blowing. But oh no, can't have clean power, that's magically bad for the world we decided.

Nuclear is making a comeback,

Germany has closed every single one of its nuclear plants and has 4 still under construction that will never be finished. Europe's ability to lead SMR development/industry and project cheap alternatives into the rest of the world can make up for what Westinghouse and Edison are failing to do; offer cheap SMR systems for smaller communities and low demand cities.

It helps to read something to yourself in a verbose way when you are having difficulty internalizing it. Try mouthing the words if you struggle to verbalize in thought.

The sun is not responsible for global warming.

Fucking LoL. TIL Milankovich Cycles do not exist and that the Sun is a consistent 100 watt lightbulb.

Thanks, Rachel Madcow.

So, you have anecdotes.

Remember when you tried to use appeal to authority?

re-tard.

Germany listened to Jeremy Rifkin. Lucky Germany.

You suck cock for petroleum money.

I've literally been car free for over 25 years and bought an electric scooter just 2 years ago. IDGAF what you drive or what it runs on as long as you are respectful towards your fellow road users.

You suck cock and Germany is a cucked faggot state. Nuclear is making a comeback in places that still make sense.

Even 3 Mile Island is being considered for new energy projects.

BULL-shit

Climate change is a theory

nah

strawman

didn't make any

Apparently you are today years old when you found out the "consensus" argument didn't come from any scientists. But from a college dropout political cartoonist turned activist. Who only went back to get a degree after being mocked for lack of credentials. So he got a PhD in psychology. And now the media gets to call him "doctor". He's like the Jill Biden of climatology. That's not even the goofiest part. He focused his studies on the psychology of climate denialism. He got a degree for studying why people don't believe his college dropout level bullshit.

Let's see your stock portfolio....

I have nothing to prove to you.

3-mile Island is on again bitches

yeah now that King Flat Earther is running the US

he'll probably make it a papal decree lol

You are literally posting in a "science" thread nigger, if you are going to push climate change theories, you are gonna need to understand big boy words. No some little girl crying about "how dare you".

Move those goalposts for me, Boo. Just got back on le food stamps and dont have any stocks, bonds, gold coins or any of that shit.

Also nice ad hominems. You leftys excel at such bullshittery.

trumpian world salad

k

she really upset you didn't she

they didn't use Zoom

that means it isn't real

keep it up trumpturd lol

Not the doofus you replied to, but here you are again calling people "she."

While I applaud the fine trolling skills, again I must remind you there are no girls on the internet.

what scientists are cutting down rain forests, chud?

Dude, you got rekt and now all you can do is babble like an idiot.

The consensus argument is you are paid to lie.

go fool yourself
everybody can feel it already
your graph is nonsense
as you can't even see the exponential increase of the last 20 years, which is what really matters, at its not going to stop without changes in our systems.
lookup a more accurate one:
xkcd.com/1732/

I get to use appeal to authority since climate change fuckheads use it too. Your little models are shit and never match the real data. Aka the models are useless.

Climate change theorists should do us all a favor and off themselves based on their doom predictions. At least the 2012 end of the world faggots did us that favor. You should too.

somewhere however, a she is upsetting him/you
and that is very very good

I'm not that doofus

sure fam

russian shill detected

you're too evil to be broke

It's clearly a political error but the point is without Germany europe will struggle to develop anything beyond pebble bed technology which while trusted is no longer the state of the art. France has some expertise in operation but not enough nuclear industry to lead any major ventures into indigenous SMRs.

If US-based corps like GE/Westinghouse can't make a minimum viable product for foreign markets someone else has to do it. It's unclear if China is willing to export their nuclear tech to wider markets and even if they do it's a risky move for them because it could cause further tension with the west since they'd be decisively affecting major US/EU corporations.

Considering the above, it's really hard to say if anyone can effectively fill the niche that is being left open by the fact US SMR development is being held back by red tape and political issues. If anything, what's happening in Germany with nuclear power is a projection of the end state of the US' current situation. SMRs are the path forward and solve all of the delivery, safety and access issues with legacy designs but remain in too much of a legal grey zone in the US.

theorists

You call them retard takes but you have literally no excuse for their behavior. None. It takes no effort to use Zoom or something else. It is completely rational for them to do this and requires no costs. And it somehow takes even less effort, negative effort, in fact, to NOT cut down a rainforest for your climate conferences and have it literally anywhere else. If they actually believed in their warnings, they would not do these things. But no, it is about prestige and money from the companies that output renewable energy, get hefty contracts, and fund much research in a cycle. We have a safe solution staring us right in the face in the form of nuclear but no one fucking cares because that's not where the money is. There is no good reason why I should believe this is anything less than blatant lysenkoism.
the ones willingly attending cop30 and not calling it out

Like I said I've nothing to prove to you or anyone in this thread and I'm also not the other person you replied to.

I did see you in another thread trying to trigger people by calling them "she." Like I said, nice trolling.

Can you even interpret that graph? Why did temperatures continue to rise when the solar insolation dropped?

Never claimed to be broke, just that I qualify for le EBT and am taking advantage of the opportunity.

I saw you in another thread

no you didn't

Retard take

Can you?

Again why does it look like CO2 levels always drop with few exceptions? Its like the reverse of the stock market.

The goal is decentralized power. No more power companies controlling everyone. No more petroleum companies buying off politicians and paying faggots like you to lie at the expense of the human race.

it's literally a troll from the early 2000s
y algore fly on pwane
y
y he do dis

No I didnt.

There is a very simple test to see who actually believed AGW. When the earth enters a prolonged cooling phase, do the ol' AGW promoters start to insist on producing more CO2 to offset it? If not, they never believed their theory. A good bet is that they just go "doh, we had it backwards. CO2 causes cooling!" They are already starting. Fortunately for most of these hacks, these are multi decadal cycles and the current group of dumbasses will die off or be forgotten by the time the next group of dumbasses get to grift in the opposite direction.

For you deniers out there, explain CFCs, the ozone layer and result of banning CFCs

One of the best replies in this here thread I made. Kudos.

Holes in le ozone layer come and go and there is proof of this.

Check and mate.

Or maybe le dinosaurs were using Sissy Spritz.

This. All scientists say ice ages are better than heat.

samefag.

Show us said proof

The goal is decentralized power

That is the exact purpose of SMR technology. Self-sufficiency and load tolerance that is embedded in every community and can be maintained by aftermarket products and technicians.

You accuse me of supporting energy institutions when I posted a Tesla tower anon. Look up what an 'SMR' is.

Are you proposing nuclear power plants and suggesting you support decentralization or am I confusing you with the shill and his prepared pile of bullshit?

Are you talking about Bill Nye?

Another swing and a miss. Wow you suck at this.

That was my first post in the thread but it's 100% fact. The "consensus" was complete bullshit. And he copied that approach from some historian that actually deserves credit for starting the "consensus" scam. She did a keyword search of scientific papers and counted everything but outright denial as support for "consensus". It wasn't even a poll. But a journal keyword search. There were a few others since, all magically hitting 97% and all a complete joke. But brainlets and their media hive mind can pretend that all the scientists got together and agreed that your farts are killing us.

he's talking about "Greed" which is worse than Evil

When are we going to talk about the real climate science?

Obviously I can which is why I'm trying to explain it to you.

Again why does it look like CO2 levels always drop with few exceptions? Its like the reverse of the stock market.

This is gibberish and has nothing to do with the graph of solar insolation vs temperature over time

Everyone I disagree with is a paid shill.

I support smaller vehicles and 3rd rail charging on most main roadways. Who am I shilling for?

None of this is true

Do you happen to own a thorium mine? Do we all own our own thorium mines?

That's not decentralized.

You are a fucking retard stonks guy who hasn't an iota of real scientific knowledge.

Traditional nuclear power plants do not solve major issues like power delivery and take longer to make their back their construction cost compared to coal and NG.

So to be truly self sufficient and decentralized you need the load tolerance of nuclear, the delivery efficiency of having many energy producing sites and the low cost to build and operate of competitors.
SMRs accomplish all of this and can also be expanded to meet growing demand, something you can't do with coal/NG/renewables.

Nuclear fuel sources are still centralized.

fail.

The graph I posted shows CO2 over millions of years and its steadily dropping due to the overabundance of trees and the fact that over time, CO2 gets put undergound by various methods and must be mined or tilled up by humans to remain at healthy levels.

We the people are the latest, greatest hope for life on this planet. Without healthy CO2 levels, everything dies.

IDGAF if you drive electric vehicles. Industrial procecesses alone are enough to sustain healthy CO2.

So can solar and wind. No risky radiation. No easily-accessible dirty bomb sources.

Nigger, you just hate renewables.

Lovely strawman. Keep arguing with the voices in your head.

No. He's some Australian named Cook.

You don't own a thorium mine??

You can look up explanations for the carbon dioxide concentrations and the temperatures for each of those periods. They are all explained and your ignorance is not my responsibility. Every assertion you have made is wrong.

How is that a strawman, retard? The fuel for small nuke plants comes from some rich shit's mine. No better than oil.

not him but I think part of the reason they're so hard for nuke power is that it's instant energy to satisfy their gluttonous demand
with solar and wind we'd have to reduce

you need enriched nuclear fuel to operate a nuclear fission reactor

This is not correct. Current generation nuclear plants are intentionally designed to prevent breeding of enriched nuclear material and thus waste transplutonics in the form of radionuclide isotopes (waste.) Closed circuit reactors do not require additional fuel. Nuclear reactors in general produce more nuclear material than they consume, the issue is that this fact drives proliferation and is thus prevented in modern designs.

You don't need to increase domestic demand of nuclear material to build more SMRs. That should be obvious at face value since proliferation is a no-no for the forseeable future.

There's a reason I'm talking about the political and legal obstacles to SMRs.

Not really. We just have to make better home storage tech. Supercapacitors.

Well boyos. Its vodka O'clock somewhere and my Lada is already warmed up and ready to go.

Ciao!

Nigger do you know of an SMR that doesn't use thorium salt?

Are you completely boneheaded?

OMG supercaps are the least stable way to store energy. Enjoy your ridiculously high internal self discharge.

LTO cells FTW. Or LFP if you dont have amazingly deep pockets.

Solar and wind suffer the same transmission and scaling issues as coal/NG and are magnitude smore expensive to produce and maintain.
Cost is going to need to be offset otherwise it just means more emissions by the dirty industry that cannot function with renewable sources. You're using dirty industry to make renewables and there is no way to make that dirty industry clean due to the transmission and scaling issues of solar and wind.
It makes no sense to have dirty industry and clean commercial energy. The priority should be clean energy for industry first to allow increasing efficiency and thus better use of precious resources with less waste.

SMRs cannot be used to manufacture weaponizable nuclear material. The idea is physically impossible and that's the sole reason companies are developing them.

Supercapacitors.

We have no reliable means of storing energy period. Those that are commercially viable still have the issue of low efficiency and high cost. This would be fine id you're using nuclear power, but low efficiency storage with wind/energy renewables is not an option.

storing hydrogen in liquid-lined fuel cells from electrolysis.

Increasingly-efficient batteries.

We're just starting to invest in renewables. There are so many improvements ahead. Fucking petroleum stockholders and shills like you need to be rounded up and aerated.

low efficiency high cost

so fund research to fix the issue
oh right forgot who's in power

Who said transmission?

RESIDENTIAL POWER GENERATION AND STORAGE.

Fucksakes. Why are shills the fucking dumbest?

do you know of an SMR that doesn't use thorium salt?

NuScale VOYGR

Light water+low enriched oxide reactor, no thorium salt

GE Hitachi BWRX-300

Water+low enriched reactor, no thorium salt

Holtec SMR-160

Light water+low enriched reactor, no thorium salt

Rolls-Royce 470 SMR

Light water+low enriched reactor, no thorium salt

It's ok to learn, that's why we're here.

Pretty much when they started making claims that didn't make sense back in the 80s.

like what

smarter than scientists

Got any of that scientific proof yet? You've said there's mountains of it and you said you'd post it countless times, yet you never seem to find any.

thinking natural to man-made CO2 are different

What difference does it make? Neither one do anything and you have nothing scientific that shows it does.

You can't scale with increasing energy demand, plus solar and wind farms necessary for urban energy densities are extremely bad for human health.

The idea that banks of panels on a roof can serve a city is fantasy. Plus, solar and wind produce energy at different frequencies than other sources and this leads to unpredictable output at higher loads.

Nice blogs there, fuckface. Post actual evidence.

they

pretty simple really
chuds like you deny it
adults don't
peer review determines paper viability
boom
done

None of that is true.

What the fuck is this? Fusion will never become widespread because we don't have enough fuel for it and it still relies on fission, so why bother?

I posted two sources with multiple hyperlinks to their sources. You have yet to post a credible source.

Your chart of millions of years stopped when it got to the recent history.

check out my modelled failures that never happened!

Fuck off with this shit.

Funding research keeps these technologies centralized and poorly managed. All scientific research conducted through relationships between private and public entities should be stopped and we would enter a technological golden age.

Physics has been broken for over 50 years. All scientific institutions are hijacked and must be disassembled and every single scientific innovation of the last 500 years open sourced. If we did this, we'd have people around other stars in literal years. You think I'm being dramatic but the technologies to do these things already exist.

Human cities are bad for human health. Decentralization. Quit making me repeat.

Can't refute it. I accept your concession.

ok Musk

everybody can feel it already

A .01°C drop over decades? I doubt it.

A webcomic of romance,

sarcasm, math, and language.
Low quality unsourced pic, faggot. You ever consider using real sources for your info?

You guys cant even refute CFCs and the ozone layer, kek

It's the guy who runs skepticalscience.com and invented the 97% consensus when it was actually only .6%.

"refute" my dumb faggot blog

lol ok

source: Fox News

we don't have enough fuel for it

This is simply not true. It's expensive to produce because there is very low demand for it, but it is just as abundant as any other fuel source in terms of available energy.
Not to mention, within a few years of a civilization meeting its energy needs by fusion it will 100% be exploiting NEOs and other planets which contain magnitude more than terrestrial sources.
Of course when you get to that point even water is a usable fusion fuel because you have virtually unlimited energy to start your energy-producing reactions that may have less then optimal efficiency.

still relies on fission

This is a clear misunderstanding of how the fission tampers work in thermonuclear devices. Some fusion methods like lattice confinement use microscopic fission events to drive fusion but this is the exception.

All of it. Flooding, droughts, heat waves, frozen earf, birds, insects, warmer, colder, more rain, less rain. You can pin anything on all-encompassing fairytales.

The CFCs and ozone layer?

You mean current when the graph was created?

who claimed climate change happened because of that anon

with multiple hyperlinks to their sources

Why not just post the links then? Are there any in there that aren't modelled bullshit?

because there is very low demand for it

Because it's scarce as fuck and the cheapest ways to make are is with fission or flying to the moon.

Never to be heard from again.

All of the proto-systems which became writing and mathematics were created for the purpose of designing urban settlements. These ancient practices are known as geomancy now and in the ancient world all major cities built were done so using rules established by geomantic practices.
Cities have existed as long as civilization has and have historically had higher quality of life than other places. You can argue that's not true now if you wish but history is quite clear about this.

There is nothing inherently wrong with urbanization when the right design philosophy is used.
Urbanization is not the issue, and not everything needs to be decentralized. Having centralization of ideas can either create a Library of Alexandria or a Tower of babel. The real issue is the philosophy of its builders.

It was debunked by everybody right after Obama repeated it. He started out with 11,000 papers or something, pared it down to 900, removed the ones that weren't peer reviews, ended up with 64 papers and found that 97% of those papers had the opinion (not evidence) that AGW was real.

You can run the numbers yourself on that very page. skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=home

It stops at 2 million. Fucksakes, retard.

COVID-19 public health measures resulted in a statistically significant decrease in COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality
and N95 masks are very effective at protecting the wearer from SARS-CoV-2 infection when used correctly
so you're saying you started accepting anti-science conspiracy theories about climate change at the same time you started accepting anti-science conspiracy theories about epidemiology and virology
that tracks
doesn't say anything good about your intellect, but it tracks

why did you present so much evidence?

I accept your concession twice.

It's not nearly as scarce as you imply. You can buy commercial heavy water generators that produce hundreds of liters per day that fit into a portapotty.

Again, the real problem is low demand. If the demand existed supply would have no problem producing enough fuel for the entire planet's current energy demands.

People who vote for trump decide our urban systems. Decentralization. Grabbing water from the air with satin sheets, like they do in the desert. Decentralize water sources.

Fuck cities.

It was debunked by everybody

on Fox News

thisblogislegitiswear.pcp

lol

I was being sarcastic you absolute retard. burning fossil fuels correlates with the building of civilizations, the fall of civilizations means less burned fossil fuels. more civilization = more burned fuel = global warming, less civilization = less burned fuel = global cooling. humans influence global warming in relation to the size of the civilization, that graph shows we are exploding past the levels of the roman civilization. i still love oil and gas because it will hasten our demise and I won't have to deal with retards like everyone ITT

so you're ok with birth control so we don't have so many people?

I'd go one step further and forcefully sterilize all liberals.

Also bullshit. They discovered that the math for chlroide reactions were off by an order of magnitude and couldn't possibly cause ozone damage of that size. They now think it's clod air coming off Antarctica. There are new holes that have opened up, with one over Brazil that's 7x larger than the Australian one and we know it's not caused by CFCs since usage has been nearly completely curbed. Turns out it's just another natural even out of our control.

It clearly shows 2014 to 2022. Fucksakes, retard.

I want to sterilize educated people who can think critically

sounds like a trumper to me

And certainly you have sauce for this bold claim...

Indoctrination is not education, and the most liberal states are the least literate. Modern liberals have lower average IQs now as well. Besides, shitlibs want their kids to be on puberty blockers anyway so they can become femboy fucktoys later in life, so they should be on board.

heavy water generators

And it takes more energy to make than what you get from it.

Almost none of it exists. That's the fucking problem. Tritium is very valuable. Why isn't it produced everywhere? It's fucking $30,000 per gram. Is that a demand issue?

all previous civilizations have used oil in combustion

Whew.

Yes. Quit fucking if you can't afford them.

And you have sauce ti back up these claims? No? Big surprise...

I do, but you can go find it. It's been published. Here, I'll use your tactic.

scholar.google.com/

red states don't pay their taxes. get the freeloaders first and balance the budget.

the most liberal states are the least literate

no they're not hillbilly

Air at ground level has enough dissociated water to be used as a water source for any level of demand.

Satin sheets get you to the poverty line. Having a source of virtually free energy like fission or fusion allows you to use air as a water source, or to grow food underground, or to create machines that favor efficiency over cost effectiveness.

Cheap/free energy is the catalyst for decentralization of power since anyone anywhere in the world can produce everything they need to live. Renewables are neither cheap nor clean to manufacture, and the energy that produce is more expensive than "dirty" sources.

i loved the 1743rd edition of the ford bronco.

obvious cunt

so they can become femboy fucktoys later in life

you're the perfect consumer demographic what are you crying about?

You shill so much you can't even remember the scale of one of your shill folder bullshit unsourced charts.

Third time I accept your concession.

Heavy water is not used to "make" energy anon. I was using the example because it is a common material in the nuclear supply chain and up until around 25 years ago it was worth its weight in gold. Now it's so cheap and abundant anyone can fill silos with the stuff.

Demand is the issue, not resource availability.

The moment i saw some downy bitch (greta) represent the notions of a concerned humanity

people don't want to quit
it feels too good
I'm of course talking about pills, iud's and abortions
you're clearly in favor of different forms of proven birth control if you want to have fewer cities

I cant

Classic denier

Yea it would have been much hotter if they had been using refined oil instead of wood and coal. That's why you see such a huge uptick once we started making refined oil.

Cheap/free energy is the catalyst for decentralization of power since anyone anywhere in the world can produce everything they need to live. Renewables are neither cheap nor clean to manufacture, and the energy that produce is more expensive than "dirty" sources.

You just want to kill the free energy technology in its relative infancy. Ratfucker.

Heavy water is not used to "make" energy anon

Is it not used in the process? What I said is that it takes a fuckload of electricity to make it. No amount of demand is going to make it cheaper. If anything it'll get worse.

Now address the tritium/deuterium issue.

Couldn't find it? You have any modern evidence showing CFCs are to blame?

Classic Leftoid.

but it isn't nonsense
and sounds like greta still triggers you pretty hard

Brother hes right, fusion fuel recently became cost-effective as a replacement for rocket fuel but not as a commercial energy source fuel yet. This is why you have dozens of fusion rocket startups appearing all over the place and getting huge investments
Fusion power is only impossible if you believe it to be

I'm cool with all forms of birth control, kreskin. Imagine the erection that shill got when he saw you targeting me for friendly fire.

Haha you cant

That's why you see such a huge uptick once we started making refined oil

What uptick? Also, you know the whole "preindustrial ppm" thing was made up, right? Callendar cherry picked low numbers and retards ran with it. We actually don't even know if we've changed the amount of CO2.

"Free energy technology" is a pretty loaded phrase nobody has used up till this point. If you're talking about plasma eddies, cavitation and ionosphere discharges then the reality is that this technology is over 100 years old now-- and the renewable energy/environmental movement has completely ignored it.

fusion fuel recently became cost-effective

Where? Where can you cheaply find iridium or deuterium?

So nothing? Sad. Many such cases.

Still cant back up your claims? Interesting

Waste of breath.

I don't have anything but my cult teachings

k

Now address the tritium/deuterium issue.

I already did;

within a few years of a civilization meeting its energy needs by fusion it will 100% be exploiting NEOs and other planets which contain magnitude more than terrestrial sources.

We have enough of these sources on Earth to meet our current energy needs. Once those needs grow beyond supply, we will have already been exploiting vastly richer sources.

I do, it's on google scholar. Look it up yourself ;)

How old were you when your uncle molested you in his shitty pickup truck?

I already did;

You didn't. Nobody has even hinted that we will have enough in the future. Fusion was always DOA.

where'd you pull this retarded chart from

reverse image it really quick

oh, yes, you are a retard

No you don't. You never have anything. Your entire church has never shown anything based in reality.

Still cant back your claims? Interesting

He had a very nice truck. A very very very nice truck. He said he'd let me drive it.

You said we wouldn't have enough oil in the future too didn't you? Turns out assessed stores are higher than ever.
Commercial fusion is, even by the most conservative estimates, an engineering not a physics problem meaning it is solvable.

By the way, this conversation started with discussion of how fission can meet all of these energy needs, while fusion is a magnitude above it. If you wish, pretend fusion is unattainable and wind/solar is still by far the worst option for the environment and humans.

Still nothing? Many such cases. SAD!

You said we wouldn't have enough oil in the future too didn't you?

No. That was also ridiculous BS from the eco-loons. We find larger reserves almost every year.

Trying to troll this hard, kek

Yeah....we have had several decades for predictions to come true. what has happened? Nothing. The world feels and looks fine. icecaps, polar bears, penguins, and beach-side mansions still exist

I don't know why this one single schizo is emotional at everyone. Absolutely unhinged. (the guy that replied to you is sperging at everyone)

I'll concede I learned something today. ty.

samefag

an engineering not a physics problem

Dude, where the fuck is the cheap and abundant tritium coming from?

how fission can meet all of these energy needs

It can.

while fusion is a magnitude above it

Except for the part where we don't have fuel for it.

and wind/solar is still by far the worst option for the environment and humans

This was never not the case. Maybe burning dung for cooking is worse.

wind/solar bad

please kill yourself boomer

it's not nonsense, the oil company's own researchers figured it out like 50 years ago, but kept it quiet and publicly stated the opposite to downplay or dismiss the effect of their own industry

Remember when we shut down offshore oil rigs in California because they were an eyesore? And now they want to industrialize the landscape, killing everything nearby and decimating hundreds of acres of forests and grasslands. All so the can fail in 9 years, after not producing enough energy to replace themselves or their cost, while providing intermittent, unreliable power, and then left to rot. So green...

2025

entire worlds information at tour fingertips

still falls for corposlop

I don't need to guess how you voted, I already know

I see there is a debate in this thread whether climate change is a thing or not....
The debates finished many years ago children. The question is not if climate change is made worse by humans, it is do you want to take action, or do you just want the world to be destroyed.
Most countries agree they can reduce effects of climate change, and they charge taxes on pollution etc.
People like trump just wants the world to burn, knowing it will happen after he dies.

corposlop

You mean like NOAA, right? They also show it hasn't been warming.

A resource does not need to meet an arbitrary measure of 'abundance' to be cost effective as a fuel resource comparatively.

I made my case for both fusion and fission and you agree with the precepts of fission so it's ok to have nuanced points on fusion. My issue is you don't seem to be well informed on the actual metrics of fusion fuel availability and demand. These are billion dollar industries that exist for a reason; because there is a break even point in clear sight.

the actual metrics of fusion fuel availability

I am. Whenever I see claims like yours I ask where the fuck this tritium and deuterium is coming from.

Pay the gubbermint to fix the weather? You're a special kind of stupid.

no way you're going to self-police corporate polluters anon
hell you want them fucking this place up

The debates finished many years ago

It didn't. One side refused to debate while the other found and provided evidence that it's not happening and CO2 is unable to warm things.

Baiting this hard

and I have the evidence right here

Democrats

Brother. You only need harvested tritium to start your reactions.
Neutron absorption with lithium provides far more fuel than a reactor consumes.
iter.org/machine/supporting-systems/tritium-breeding
(just one example, obviously any neutron source can do this)
Getting 1 fusion reactor up and running is the barrier to being able to produce abundant tritium. Or you can just use fission reactors to make it at slightly lower output.
Deuterium is cheaper than some commercial food additives.
unitednuclear.com/chemicals-metals-c-69/deuterium-oxide-p-135.html

CO2 is plant food. Not pollution.

CO2 is poison to animals. Not food

Just a waste gas, not poison in small amounts.

What is ischemia

Its not, but she is.

our atmosphere is mostly nitrogen you stupid faggot child

Nitrogen isnt CO2 is it?

OSHA says its ok for humans to work in up to 2,000ppm of CO2 without any special equipment as long as there is sufficient oxygen.

So not a poison in smaller amounts.

What about at 2000 ppm in your blood stream?

you'll bee

fine as along as CO2 is less than 0.2% of the air...
Kek

You sound like a doofus. Excessive CO2 would be toxic, not poisonous. Learn 2 english better.

In amounts ranging from 2,000 to 5,000 ppm humans can begin to experience headaches, fatigue, disorientation, nausea, etc.

Poisons are substances that cause harm to organisms when sufficient quantities are absorbed, inhaled or ingested. A toxin is a poisonous substance produced within living cells or organisms.

sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/364-poisons-and-toxins

At only 0.5%? Interesting

Anything is a dildo if you're brave enough.

I prefer electro stimulation

these "scientists" said we'd be underwater by now, and every rain storm would be acid rain. these fucking retards aren't real scientists. they're bought and paid for propogandists

Thats a Bingo.

The one at the end of OP's graph. The line sharply climbs.

Also, you know the whole "preindustrial ppm" thing was made up, right?

You mean like the oil funded research you cite?

what about the CO2 levels 6 trillion years before humans existed

seriously nigger?

I see facts and logic are not your forte.

You forgot how that claim continued with an "if."

You forgot that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell.

acid rain

'man made climate change' is real but it's overstated to apocalyptic levels for purpose of social engineering to convince the working class to essentially become slaves. It is to help convince you to never own property, a car, etc so that you only exist to create profit.

the Little Ice Age circa 1500AD was probably due to the Great Die Off of 50 million Native Americans from European diseases, leaving millions of farms to go fallow causing a huge carbon sink sucking up CO2, 95% of 60 million Natives died from disease within 100 years of Columbus arriving

Or a Maunder Minimum which is far more likely than that BS you just spewed.

This is a retarded take, climate change believers are much less consumptive. Why would the capital owning class want a consumer base that has lower demand for the goods they produce?

Everything the left was/is pushing means higher taxes, more work, less spending power, smaller vehicle, smaller home range, eating lower on the food chain, more carbon taxes, etc.

Own nothing, be happy, eat bugs. Sound familiar?

I think the big problem here is not your general political views - but more that you are American.
Don't worry aid will be there for you after the restoration of democracy.

Green parties are talking about degrowth which is the exact opposite of the GDP obsession of capitalists and governments.

Says the Eurocuck with zero second amendment rights and few first amendment rights while your whole continent save for a few exceptions is being flooded with rapey, stabby muzzies.

Meanwhile, China produces by far the most global CO2 emissions (after producing the COVID-19 pandemic).
statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-selected-countries/

Thank God someone is finally clamping down on that absolute geo-suicidal aggressive malignancy.

Even the lefty buzzwords are backwards. Degrowth. Thats worse than economists saying stagflation or some bullshit when they dont want to use the word recession.

Thats nothing to do with their emissions and everything to do with CCP agression.

If we could only move back to a time of values. I mean that's what people want right? A time when people could understand the events around them. I've been watching postwar civics films. Apparently it's quide easy to recognize a Despot even in a supposed democracy.
After watching for 2 of 16 minutes Donald J Trump pretty much was flagged as one thing. A Despot.
According to "traditional values"

postwar civics

after the war people wanted government to properly care for everyone. we all pay into the pot and the government provides services that benefit us all. trump is the opposite of that

Fact is CCP will gladly fuck everyone on this planet in every way possible if it can get away with it. Every type of environmental suicide is 100% exponentially achieved without a scintilla of consideration for the glory and power of the party. It's aggression on every level. No care. No concern.

google who has the highest renewable energy installation per year

china produces a third of the entire world's renewable energy

you can hate the ccp but china leads the world in clean renewable energy go look it up

Nuclear engineer here. The pebble bed reactor was such a poor concept that never should be seriously considered for contemporary designs. It has obvious flaws due to basic core geometry; core instrumentation and flux measurement, unnecessarily complicated neutronics and reactivity calculations, core temperature measurements, fuel loading, power changes and burnup control, graphite dust entrainment from pebble loading... The list goes on and on. Too bad they're actually operating in China, because the world will never hear the truth about operational problems of a Chinese reactor.

If you want to run high burnup % with a gas cooled core, just go with a sane geometry like a prismatic core.

Unfortunately I am too intelligent to realize that.
Things would be so much easier if I was a simple soul like you.