Member of the Month

X_MEMESWERVE_XX
March, 2025

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Climate change

profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,975
So I always hear people saying that people are dumb for not believing in climate change. But it's not between believing in climate change or not... it's about whether you believe it is almost entirely man-made. Lots of people don't believe that it is man made, including 16% of climate scientists. People always state that 97% percent of scientists say climate change is real. Sure they do. But only 84% agree that it is man made.

So.... is climate change man made? If so, why? If not, why? We don't have a lot of solid historical temperatures to go by. Also, we don't completely understand a climate cycle, if there is one? The data shows the climate is changing. But one must make an inference that it's man made, and that inference could very well be wrong.
POLL
Edit Poll
Votes:

Take care when editing a poll; Options should be similar to maintain vote integrity.

More options will be added automatically as you type. You must supply a question and at least two options. No HTML is allowed.

8 years ago
4 1
profile picture
K-Dot.
Posts: 3790 - Karma: 8,342
milk_manSalt Lake City is small. What I'm thinking of is Minneapolis..since that's what I know. A lot of the suburbs are 15 miles (at least) away from Minneapolis or Saint Paul. Not sure why this is so contentious though? Some cities like NYC you don't need a car, some cities like LA you do


You just answered your own question again, you're talking about suburbs and urban sprawl, not city.

Our system of separation between where we sleep, buy and work by large distances has and will continue to have detrimental effects on not only our environment, but our society and how we socialize as well.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,975
californiagrownLike I said, you're talking about suburbs not big cities.



...are you really bad at math? Driving 5 miles vs 60 miles. I guess you weren't kidding up there lol.


Those are not my numbers.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,975
K-Dot.You just answered your own question again, you're talking about suburbs and urban sprawl, not city.

Our system of separation between where we sleep, buy and work by large distances has and will continue to have detrimental effects on not only our environment, but our society and how we socialize as well.


Suburbs exist because it's pretty much impossible for everyone to live close to their job in a city. Unless we endlessly build upward we will always have suburbs
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
broto
Posts: 9040 - Karma: 25,671
milk_manSuburbs exist because it's pretty much impossible for everyone to live close to their job in a city. Unless we endlessly build upward we will always have suburbs


if you actually want to have a conversation on how to curb emissions of people in suburban/rural areas or how to facilitate more sustainable development, i'm all ears. you may be right, it's probably not feasible for everyone to live close to their job in a city. but that doesn't mean we should just give up. and that's not what you've been arguing this entire time. suburban sprawl is one of many ways to develop land, unfortunately it is cheap, easy, and commonly practiced in america. once you accept that the rural and suburban folks generally have higher carbon emissions than urban people, and not by their own faults, we can work towards a solution
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
californiagrown
Posts: 9794 - Karma: 2,014
milk_manThose are not my numbers.


K, let's use the numbers you threw out there(that apply to suburbs), and that also (incorrectly) assume that the folks driving 60 miles are not in traffic, but the folks driving 15 miles always are.

Assume a typical 30mpg for highway, 20mpg for city.


Folks driving 60 miles still use 267% as much gas as the folks driving 15.



Also, yes. We should be building up. People have too much stuff, and want homes bigger than they need. I work with developers that are building high density apartment buildings and mixed use developments that would accomplish this well.


Urban sprawl, and the middle class's entitlement to an upper class life is a big, big problem and a large contributer to anthropogenic climate change IMO.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
.MASSHOLE.
Posts: 7568 - Karma: 12,561
brotoif you actually want to have a conversation on how to curb emissions of people in suburban/rural areas or how to facilitate more sustainable development, i'm all ears. you may be right, it's probably not feasible for everyone to live close to their job in a city. but that doesn't mean we should just give up. and that's not what you've been arguing this entire time. suburban sprawl is one of many ways to develop land, unfortunately it is cheap, easy, and commonly practiced in america. once you accept that the rural and suburban folks generally have higher carbon emissions than urban people, and not by their own faults, we can work towards a solution


Better public transit. Run more trains that are more efficient and faster. Boston has a horrible commuter rail system, but it is infinitely better than driving. The only issue is it was made in the 70s(?), is very unreliable, and can be inconvenient due to scheduling. If they were to modernize it by making it faster and more reliable, the schedule issue would become a moot point.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
JTTrembles
Posts: 1108 - Karma: 1,907
californiagrown...are you really bad at math? Driving 5 miles vs 60 miles. I guess you weren't kidding up there lol.


His numbers and miles maybe off but he has a point, City driving tends to use much more gas than interstate driving.

http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-advice/why-does-my-car-use-less-fuel-on-the-highway-than-it-does-around-town-35369

Granted I don't think you'd burn more gas driving 15 miles around town then you would 60 miles on the highway
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
californiagrown
Posts: 9794 - Karma: 2,014
JTTremblesHis numbers and miles maybe off but he has a point, City driving tends to use much more gas than interstate driving.

http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-advice/why-does-my-car-use-less-fuel-on-the-highway-than-it-does-around-town-35369

Granted I don't think you'd burn more gas driving 15 miles around town then you would 60 miles on the highway


Keep on reading through the thread...
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
chris.goodhue
Posts: 946 - Karma: 6,213
The earth has always been changing and will long after we are all gone. Many cycles like this have happened over the 4 billion years earth has been evolving.

That being said, our carbon levels are extremely high and that is definitely due to human impact which will in turn warm the earth.

I'm getting sick of all this climate crap on social media though, so much hypocritical bullshit. Especially from the skiing community. Oh you are a environmental advocate now? But you not going to stop using that truck to get to your zone, or the snowmobile you own, or the chairlifts / helicopter you ride to the top of the mountain are you? I get it, in order for anything to happen people are going to need to make a change, but who is really going to make the sacrifice? Us skiers?....mhhhh not sure about that.

It's a interesting problem, which sadly I believe won't be taken seriously until it's too late.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
K-Dot.
Posts: 3790 - Karma: 8,342
brotoif you actually want to have a conversation on how to curb emissions of people in suburban/rural areas or how to facilitate more sustainable development, i'm all ears. you may be right, it's probably not feasible for everyone to live close to their job in a city. but that doesn't mean we should just give up. and that's not what you've been arguing this entire time. suburban sprawl is one of many ways to develop land, unfortunately it is cheap, easy, and commonly practiced in america. once you accept that the rural and suburban folks generally have higher carbon emissions than urban people, and not by their own faults, we can work towards a solution


It's actually quite feasible, that's precisely what the study of urban ecology is. Many people have studied it and come up with solutions and there are much better ways of doing things, people just simply don't want to. Slowly our culture is changing and becoming more aware that faceless neighborhoods and housing developments are not what we need to be building but at the same time, not much is really being done because people either don't know or don't care to change. Also, it's more than just where your job is, but where everything else that you need is. Shopping malls are a good example of this problem.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284
K-Dot.It's actually quite feasible, that's precisely what the study of urban ecology is. Many people have studied it and come up with solutions and there are much better ways of doing things, people just simply don't want to. Slowly our culture is changing and becoming more aware that faceless neighborhoods and housing developments are not what we need to be building but at the same time, not much is really being done because people either don't know or don't care to change. Also, it's more than just where your job is, but where everything else that you need is. Shopping malls are a good example of this problem.


Any mention of sustainability?
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
K-Dot.
Posts: 3790 - Karma: 8,342
Gods_FatherAny mention of sustainability?


Of course, the whole field is focused on designing sustainable, efficient living spaces where people can live as well as recreate and work and eat all close by. Idealistic for everywhere to be like this? Quite. However most gentrified parts of cities are falling in line with this as you see more areas incorporating mixtures of businesses, living spaces and parks, creating more desirable living spaces. The next step will be easy public transit and energy efficient buildings that incorporate plant life. There's a book that goes into more detail about all this, I'll see if I can find it
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,975
chris.goodhueearth has been evolving.


Wut
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Rusticles
Posts: 2180 - Karma: 1,337
chris.goodhueThe earth has always been changing and will long after we are all gone. Many cycles like this have happened over the 4 billion years earth has been evolving.

That being said, our carbon levels are extremely high and that is definitely due to human impact which will in turn warm the earth.

I'm getting sick of all this climate crap on social media though, so much hypocritical bullshit. Especially from the skiing community. Oh you are a environmental advocate now? But you not going to stop using that truck to get to your zone, or the snowmobile you own, or the chairlifts / helicopter you ride to the top of the mountain are you? I get it, in order for anything to happen people are going to need to make a change, but who is really going to make the sacrifice? Us skiers?....mhhhh not sure about that.

It's a interesting problem, which sadly I believe won't be taken seriously until it's too late.


I agree with the social media shit. People like Leo Dicaprio, "we need climate action"........ "right after I fly my private jet to a giant Saudi prince's yacht" I don't know how many people especially young women "Fuck the oil sands!! Fuck pipelines" then "who's going to Cabo this weekend bitches" SMFH
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
chris.goodhue
Posts: 946 - Karma: 6,213
milk_manWut

As a whole system, yes.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,975
chris.goodhueAs a whole system, yes.


Evolution of EVERYTHING. Thanks, Darwin.... "Things change, man"
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
onenerdykid
Posts: 6744 - Karma: 11,755
Knowing many of the causes of climate change has lead us to the conclusion that if we contribute to those causes, we (at some level) contribute to climate change. At a minimum, we hear that we may be contributing to climate change and that it's uncertain to the exact degree to which we are directly responsible for causing climate change.

But even if all climate scientists were unsure of how direct our role in climate change was, we still ought to act like we are directly responsible for climate change. Why? Because we don't have a 2nd planet to run the experiment on and see if we were wrong. There's no re-do button to press so we can try it differently the next time. This is it and that's why we should act like it.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Rusticles
Posts: 2180 - Karma: 1,337
onenerdykidKnowing many of the causes of climate change has lead us to the conclusion that if we contribute to those causes, we (at some level) contribute to climate change. At a minimum, we hear that we may be contributing to climate change and that it's uncertain to the exact degree to which we are directly responsible for causing climate change.

But even if all climate scientists were unsure of how direct our role in climate change was, we still ought to act like we are directly responsible for climate change. Why? Because we don't have a 2nd planet to run the experiment on and see if we were wrong. There's no re-do button to press so we can try it differently the next time. This is it and that's why we should act like it.


A small but sick and twisted part of me is kind of curious as to how this turns out and if I'm going to see changes in my lifetime. It's kind of natural really, It's like a species decimating their population because of over consumption, Like caterpillars dying off after consuming everything until there's little left for all to continue. Is this going to be the epidemic that kills off the human race? I mean really the human race will come to an end one way or another (not that we shouldn't prevent it). Or is there going to be a major culling of the herd and we learn from our mistakes and proceed accordingly. I hope I'm able to see some of the outcome as fucked as that may seem.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
JGWI
Posts: 2842 - Karma: 7,812
There is this missconception that changing the earths climate is like pushing a freight train off a cliff. However, just like many ecosystems, our climate is very delicate. Add a little more CO2 into the atmosphere then can be taken back up and soon you end up with a pile, then positive feedback systems can kick in and further exsasturbate the problem. Maybe we aren't the main cause (which the datas would suggest otherwise). Ought we still not strive to produce cleaner energy? It's going to eventually have to be done, why is today any worse then tomorrow?
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
californiagrown
Posts: 9794 - Karma: 2,014
JGWIThere is this missconception that changing the earths climate is like pushing a freight train off a cliff. However, just like many ecosystems, our climate is very delicate. Add a little more CO2 into the atmosphere then can be taken back up and soon you end up with a pile, then positive feedback systems can kick in and further exsasturbate the problem. Maybe we aren't the main cause (which the datas would suggest otherwise). Ought we still not strive to produce cleaner energy? It's going to eventually have to be done, why is today any worse then tomorrow?


Because people believe significant anthropogenic climate is not happening, and the very easy to see risk to the economy outweighs the very small (in their eyes) risk of human caused climate change.

Also, I kinda like your analogy. It's tough to get the train to the edge, but when it hits the tipping point it picks up speed and drags all the rest of the cars down with it.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
yungcigsmoker
Posts: 785 - Karma: 5,922
How the fuck do people still not think humanity is having a contribution to emissions?
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Campeador
Posts: 7516 - Karma: -1,227
Bad news for the Climate Changers,

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/permian-s-wolfcamp-holds-20-billion-barrels-of-oil-u-s-says

great news for the United States of America.

If the Climate Change folks finally dropped this nonsense about wind and solar power, and instead put their efforts towards researching cost-effective carbon capture technology, they'd have the support of just about everyone.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,975
JGWIThere is this missconception that changing the earths climate is like pushing a freight train off a cliff. However, just like many ecosystems, our climate is very delicate. Add a little more CO2 into the atmosphere then can be taken back up and soon you end up with a pile, then positive feedback systems can kick in and further exsasturbate the problem. Maybe we aren't the main cause (which the datas would suggest otherwise). Ought we still not strive to produce cleaner energy? It's going to eventually have to be done, why is today any worse then tomorrow?


Today is only worse than tomorrow because today it would be funded through government assistance, and in the future the people would decide if they actually want to pay that much for energy. It is darn expensive. We don't see that because the government subsidizes it. Tons of money was put toward wind energy, and a lot of the projects fizzled out. One was supposed to go up on my grandmas land..it never went up
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
S.J.W
Posts: 7609 - Karma: 31,172
CampeadorBad news for the Climate Changers,

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/permian-s-wolfcamp-holds-20-billion-barrels-of-oil-u-s-says

great news for the United States of America.

If the Climate Change folks finally dropped this nonsense about wind and solar power, and instead put their efforts towards researching cost-effective carbon capture technology, they'd have the support of just about everyone.


no they fucking wouldn't. Wind and solar are the fucking future. What the fuck are we going to do when we run out of fossil fuels? Just hold our dicks and wait for the 40+ years of technological advancement in solar and wind while we do what? Go into eternal darkness.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,975
S.J.Wno they fucking wouldn't. Wind and solar are the fucking future. What the fuck are we going to do when we run out of fossil fuels? Just hold our dicks and wait for the 40+ years of technological advancement in solar and wind while we do what? Go into eternal darkness.


Maybe the future is an agrarian society lolol. Because solar and wind are pretty iffy
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
californiagrown
Posts: 9794 - Karma: 2,014
CampeadorBad news for the Climate Changers,

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/permian-s-wolfcamp-holds-20-billion-barrels-of-oil-u-s-says

great news for the United States of America.

If the Climate Change folks finally dropped this nonsense about wind and solar power, and instead put their efforts towards researching cost-effective carbon capture technology, they'd have the support of just about everyone.


You do realize we are all working towards the same goal, right? A better world.

Not sure why you are so happy about others failures while working toward that goal?
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Rusticles
Posts: 2180 - Karma: 1,337
S.J.Wno they fucking wouldn't. Wind and solar are the fucking future. What the fuck are we going to do when we run out of fossil fuels? Just hold our dicks and wait for the 40+ years of technological advancement in solar and wind while we do what? Go into eternal darkness.


I don't know about that. Wind is somewhat promising and reliable.... But can it really sustain future demand if we plan on replacing combustion engines with electric? We are going to need a shitload of electricity and you would need to put up windmills everywhere to make it the future of energy. Solar, again a good idea in theory, but if we have to charge vehicles during the evening we would need large batteries to store the energy. Better keep the lithium (providing its the battery of choice) for batteries in automobiles so they don't become overpriced with demand.

I'd say nuclear is the most promising. It's clean and can make incredible amounts of energy especially if we can harness thorium or even fusion reactors.

But with all that It might be worth our while investing in carbon capture technology for our coal power plants while we figure out what the next best step is before we invest in technology that might not work.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
turnt_table
Posts: 56 - Karma: 88
It's snowing in Boulder right now climate change is a hoax confirmed.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,975
RusticlesI'd say nuclear is the most promising. It's clean and can make incredible amounts of energy especially if we can harness thorium or even fusion reactors.


I've been placing my bets that humans will never be able to harness nuclear fusion. But if we did it would basically be unlimited energy!
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
270on420out
Posts: 7522 - Karma: 51,282
Maybe we'll all live in a real life version of Fallout 4
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
JibbaTheHutt
Posts: 2132 - Karma: 1,597
CampeadorBad news for the Climate Changers,

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/permian-s-wolfcamp-holds-20-billion-barrels-of-oil-u-s-says

great news for the United States of America.

If the Climate Change folks finally dropped this nonsense about wind and solar power, and instead put their efforts towards researching cost-effective carbon capture technology, they'd have the support of just about everyone.


1. you're a retard, harnessing wind and solar make perfect sense, non renewable energy is just that, non renewable. when it runs out we will need alternatives and wind and solar are by far the most viable sources world wide. continued R&D will continue to bring the cost of these sources down and they will soon be far cheaper than oil,gas or coal.

2. We have natural carbon capture sources and have done for hundreds of millions of years, they're called trees. Unfortunately we are going through the greatest level of de-forestation ever, and for what? to feed peoples desire for cheap beef, and to make way for huge palm oil plantations. If people limit their consumption of those 2 commodities the world would be a better place
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
JTTrembles
Posts: 1108 - Karma: 1,907
CampeadorBad news for the Climate Changers,

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/permian-s-wolfcamp-holds-20-billion-barrels-of-oil-u-s-says

great news for the United States of America.

If the Climate Change folks finally dropped this nonsense about wind and solar power, and instead put their efforts towards researching cost-effective carbon capture technology, they'd have the support of just about everyone.


Why does it have to be one or the other? I don't think we need to completely drop solar + wind development in order to have the funds to research capturing of carbon
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Campeador
Posts: 7516 - Karma: -1,227
JibbaTheHutt1. you're a retard, harnessing wind and solar make perfect sense, non renewable energy is just that, non renewable. when it runs out we will need alternatives and wind and solar are by far the most viable sources world wide. continued R&D will continue to bring the cost of these sources down and they will soon be far cheaper than oil,gas or coal.

2. We have natural carbon capture sources and have done for hundreds of millions of years, they're called trees. Unfortunately we are going through the greatest level of de-forestation ever, and for what? to feed peoples desire for cheap beef, and to make way for huge palm oil plantations. If people limit their consumption of those 2 commodities the world would be a better place



Could you be any more clueless? Do you have no concept whatsoever of how an electrical grid functions?

http://euanmearns.com/electricity-supply-and-demand-for-beginners/

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/germanys-green-energy-destabilizing-electric-grids/

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/11/germany-forced-people-to-use-traditional-electricity-to-prevent-green-energy-meltdown/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602112/in-texas-oil-country-wind-is-straining-the-grid/
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
JibbaTheHutt
Posts: 2132 - Karma: 1,597
CampeadorCould you be any more clueless? Do you have no concept whatsoever of how an electrical grid functions?

http://euanmearns.com/electricity-supply-and-demand-for-beginners/

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/germanys-green-energy-destabilizing-electric-grids/

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/11/germany-forced-people-to-use-traditional-electricity-to-prevent-green-energy-meltdown/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602112/in-texas-oil-country-wind-is-straining-the-grid/


I'm not quite sure what you're getting at? I am completely aware that solar and wind are intermittent forms of energy, see " continued R&D will continue to bring the cost of these sources down and they will soon be far cheaper than oil,gas or coal".

There has been massive amounts of development in storing these forms of energy in highly efficient batteries, in relatively short period of time. I'm arguing that if we continue to invest in this research we will have very usable, stable access to clean energy 24 hours a day 365 days a year.


You have also failed to put up any form of argument against my statement that fossil fuels WILL run out in the near future. If we do not find alternative energy sources we will be left with an energy gap that will cripple the economy far worse than if we were to make a radical change to alternative energy sources in the next 5-10 years. Or am i to believe that you think oil will be plentiful forever?
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284
JibbaTheHuttI'm not quite sure what you're getting at? I am completely aware that solar and wind are intermittent forms of energy, see " continued R&D will continue to bring the cost of these sources down and they will soon be far cheaper than oil,gas or coal".

There has been massive amounts of development in storing these forms of energy in highly efficient batteries, in relatively short period of time. I'm arguing that if we continue to invest in this research we will have very usable, stable access to clean energy 24 hours a day 365 days a year.


You have also failed to put up any form of argument against my statement that fossil fuels WILL run out in the near future. If we do not find alternative energy sources we will be left with an energy gap that will cripple the economy far worse than if we were to make a radical change to alternative energy sources in the next 5-10 years. Or am i to believe that you think oil will be plentiful forever?


Oil is abiotic.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
broto
Posts: 9040 - Karma: 25,671
Gods_FatherOil is abiotic.


Grass is green. What's your point?
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284
brotoGrass is green. What's your point?


Crude oil and natural gas are generated without fossils.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
DirtYStylE
Posts: 3652 - Karma: 8,892
Man made? I bet so.
[URL]http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/convert-co2-into-ethanol/[/URL]

http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/young-people-are-suing-governments-over-climate-change/news-story/e327a797ab048ba2013f7f96c2d3ffbc
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6844 - Karma: 2,122
there are very few climate scientists who don't believe in climate change caused by humans. very few. and it's their fucking job as scientists to be skeptical

. i'm drunk and supposed to be staying out of NSG because I am a troll but humans are fucking up the planet. I don't give a single fuck about it. I don't give a fuck about the world and if the snow disappears I will go surfing instead of skiing i guess but we ARE causing global warming and we are for sure fucking up the atmosphere and if you don't "believe" in it you are a stupid fucking human being. it's plain and simple.

fuck donald trump and fuck you.

see you in ski gabber and gear talk tomorrow if I don't get banned.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
onenerdykid
Posts: 6744 - Karma: 11,755
Pretty rad to see my old "hometown" become America's first city to run 100% on renewable energy. Good stuff!

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/burlington-what-works-green-energy-214463
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
mswizzle3
Posts: 94 - Karma: 120
RusticlesI agree with the social media shit. People like Leo Dicaprio, "we need climate action"........ "right after I fly my private jet to a giant Saudi prince's yacht" I don't know how many people especially young women "Fuck the oil sands!! Fuck pipelines" then "who's going to Cabo this weekend bitches" SMFH


Exactly, I mean I give Leo credit for admitting that he does have an above average carbon footprint but at the same time the amount of shots they got from a helicopter in that documentary was hypocritical. Like they couldve gotten a similar effect using a drone.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
JTTrembles
Posts: 1108 - Karma: 1,907
CampeadorCould you be any more clueless? Do you have no concept whatsoever of how an electrical grid functions?

http://euanmearns.com/electricity-supply-and-demand-for-beginners/

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/germanys-green-energy-destabilizing-electric-grids/

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/11/germany-forced-people-to-use-traditional-electricity-to-prevent-green-energy-meltdown/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602112/in-texas-oil-country-wind-is-straining-the-grid/


He must've skipped that class in high school
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
CrackSmoker
Posts: 33 - Karma: -2
climate change is BULLSHIT!
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
tac0.slayer
Posts: 254 - Karma: 947
CrackSmokerclimate change is BULLSHIT!


Wow good point. Compelling argument too.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Campeador
Posts: 7516 - Karma: -1,227
JTTremblesHe must've skipped that class in high school


Have you even graduated yet?

Nothing worst than politically opinionated teenagers.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
JTTrembles
Posts: 1108 - Karma: 1,907
CampeadorHave you even graduated yet?

Nothing worst than politically opinionated teenagers.


Yes sir, 2014 was the year.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,975
Let's just outlaw cellular respiration. That should help
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
TheDoughAbides
Posts: 1319 - Karma: 4,036
JTTremblesHe must've skipped that class in high school


Campeador went to community college. He's very insecure about it, too.
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,975
TheDoughAbidesCampeador went to community college. He's very insecure about it, too.


What's so bad about community college? I graduated from one and now I'm going to a university, there isn't a huge difference in quality to be honest
8 years ago
0 0
profile picture
TheDoughAbides
Posts: 1319 - Karma: 4,036
milk_manWhat's so bad about community college? I graduated from one and now I'm going to a university, there isn't a huge difference in quality to be honest


Ha, no wonder you deny climate change. University of Phoenix and DeVry don't count, guy.
8 years ago
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4); Currently it's 3:38AM