Because there are two units for one number, which doesn't make any sense if you actually look at the numbers. US$0.026 or 2.6 cents US would make more sense.
This old nonsense again. Yes, it's true that the pollution is shifted to the plant, but the plant has industrial-scale scrubbers, or indeed might not emit any CO2. Why are you constantly misrepresenting this? You're either ignorant of this topic, or you are lying on purpose. Pick one.
No, they shift the emissions from the exhaust to before the masses of scrubbers and pollution-easing measures implemented at the generation station, which might also be hydroelectric, solar, geothermal, wind, or nuclear. Your point?
That is true, but when you realise that water vapour is incredibly short-lived in the atmosphere (see: rain), it isn't as true as you seem to wish it to be.
When it's considered perfectly normal to be an "anarcho-primitivist" or "radical environmentalist", as it is to be religion, or if they numbered in the billions, you'd have a point. But as that's not the case, you don't. Not even close. Stop trying to make excuses - it's sad. Religion is dangerous, and people realise that.
Why are you saying "we"? Were you in WWII fighting the Germans with your thousands of tanks? Or is glomming yourself on to those better than you make you feel better? Serious question.
Apart from the parts which were not designed in the US, sure... Your definition of "American" seems to be based on feeling, not some sort of solid definition...
Whether it sounds like propaganda or not, the science backs it up. Only a fool would ignore verifiable information of importance simply because they didn't like the tone of it.
And commute hundreds of miles a day in your magical tractor, harvesting crops on land that most likely won't suit them, all the while fighting pests which thrive in these new climes? Genius! Idiocy to the rescue!
They will lose value as crops suitable for human consumption move away from them - the greater the distance, the more value they lose. So yes. You're wrong.
Because agriculture is tied to where agriculture currently works, and just because some parts get warmer doesn't mean they can automatically start being fertile. Plus when some areas get warm, they release methane, which makes the whole thing speed up. It might be nice for a few years, but that "niceness" causes runaway warming which is anything but nice. The rest of your post is just guesswork. And warming is occurring, whether you like it or not. You don't get to disprove science without any of your own.
Changing your crops means changing nearly everything a farmer does. It's not a small task in any way. And the temperature might change even faster if we reach a tipping point (say, the vast methane deposits under the tundra permafrost in Russia get released, or ocean acidification kills off large amounts of our oxygen-producing algae). You are relying on the absolute-best-possible-scenario, which is clearly highly unlikely to be the case. And your last line just ignores everything he had to say. Your bias is showing.
You are completely missing the point. Scientists want their research to rock the boat. There is no better guarantee of future funding than overturning a widely-held scientific belief. None. None even close. You are suggesting that every single climate scientist the world over is not winning the Nobel prize & unlimited future funding simply so they can keep their paltry budgets?? You really don't understand the world you live in. It's sad.
You are comparing a greenhouse and the world. You are comparing how some unnamed plant species grow to how the entire ecology of the world functions. Don't you feel ridiculous silly? Has it occurred to you that you might not know enough to form an opinion on this subject, let alone one that contradicts the scientific consensus? I mean, if you are right, simply work out the details and collect your Nobel prize.
Formula 1 cars? Really? Do you have any idea how infantile that makes you sound?:) If we compare computing to motoring, you are just a commuter like the vast majority of people, and nothing more. Get over yourself.
Listen to yourself! AMD are so awesome that they can force Intel to break physical barriers, and make materials do things they simply can not?? AMD might have helped in the past, but you sound insane.
He's not calling himself a scientist, but a "science guy". Calling yourself a "medicine guy" is not the same as calling yourself a doctor, neither is "law guy" the same as a lawyer, or "shoot black people guy" same as police officer. Get a grip.
Stop trying to make excuses! You sound ridiculous! Your quote, which you seem to agree with, even states that it was a process *created* by *a creator*. The mechanics might not have been his, but the process was entirely his. Theists are funny.
If by "other" you mean "developing or recently-developed", then you are correct. If you compare the US to the rest of the developed world, it's tragically behind.
You are conflating copyright infringement (downloading from TPB) with commercial copyright infringement (selling copies). Don't. It makes you look ridiculous. Stealing is depriving others of their property. Copying something deprives no-one of their property. Downloading from TPB is as much stealing as looking at someone is kidnap.
Slashdot Mirror
Because there are two units for one number, which doesn't make any sense if you actually look at the numbers. US$0.026 or 2.6 cents US would make more sense.
And still emits less CO2 per mile travelled by the electric cars it powers than any ICE can. You really aren't good at this, are you?
This old nonsense again. Yes, it's true that the pollution is shifted to the plant, but the plant has industrial-scale scrubbers, or indeed might not emit any CO2. Why are you constantly misrepresenting this? You're either ignorant of this topic, or you are lying on purpose. Pick one.
No, they shift the emissions from the exhaust to before the masses of scrubbers and pollution-easing measures implemented at the generation station, which might also be hydroelectric, solar, geothermal, wind, or nuclear. Your point?
Gasoline is just a storage mechanism, too, of the energy that went in to the creature which decomposed to make it.
That is true, but when you realise that water vapour is incredibly short-lived in the atmosphere (see: rain), it isn't as true as you seem to wish it to be.
When it's considered perfectly normal to be an "anarcho-primitivist" or "radical environmentalist", as it is to be religion, or if they numbered in the billions, you'd have a point. But as that's not the case, you don't. Not even close. Stop trying to make excuses - it's sad. Religion is dangerous, and people realise that.
That's very true. LEDs look exactly the same when they're on or off - that's why they're never used for anything.
Why are you saying "we"? Were you in WWII fighting the Germans with your thousands of tanks? Or is glomming yourself on to those better than you make you feel better? Serious question.
Apart from the parts which were not designed in the US, sure... Your definition of "American" seems to be based on feeling, not some sort of solid definition...
You're the only one claiming that.
Apart from the climate scientists with all their pesky evidence. Those cursed scientists trying to attack capitalism! rabble! rabble! rabble!
Whether it sounds like propaganda or not, the science backs it up. Only a fool would ignore verifiable information of importance simply because they didn't like the tone of it.
And commute hundreds of miles a day in your magical tractor, harvesting crops on land that most likely won't suit them, all the while fighting pests which thrive in these new climes? Genius! Idiocy to the rescue!
They will lose value as crops suitable for human consumption move away from them - the greater the distance, the more value they lose. So yes. You're wrong.
Because agriculture is tied to where agriculture currently works, and just because some parts get warmer doesn't mean they can automatically start being fertile. Plus when some areas get warm, they release methane, which makes the whole thing speed up. It might be nice for a few years, but that "niceness" causes runaway warming which is anything but nice. The rest of your post is just guesswork. And warming is occurring, whether you like it or not. You don't get to disprove science without any of your own.
Changing your crops means changing nearly everything a farmer does. It's not a small task in any way. And the temperature might change even faster if we reach a tipping point (say, the vast methane deposits under the tundra permafrost in Russia get released, or ocean acidification kills off large amounts of our oxygen-producing algae). You are relying on the absolute-best-possible-scenario, which is clearly highly unlikely to be the case. And your last line just ignores everything he had to say. Your bias is showing.
You are completely missing the point. Scientists want their research to rock the boat. There is no better guarantee of future funding than overturning a widely-held scientific belief. None. None even close. You are suggesting that every single climate scientist the world over is not winning the Nobel prize & unlimited future funding simply so they can keep their paltry budgets?? You really don't understand the world you live in. It's sad.
You are comparing a greenhouse and the world. You are comparing how some unnamed plant species grow to how the entire ecology of the world functions. Don't you feel ridiculous silly? Has it occurred to you that you might not know enough to form an opinion on this subject, let alone one that contradicts the scientific consensus? I mean, if you are right, simply work out the details and collect your Nobel prize.
Formula 1 cars? Really? Do you have any idea how infantile that makes you sound? :) If we compare computing to motoring, you are just a commuter like the vast majority of people, and nothing more. Get over yourself.
Listen to yourself! AMD are so awesome that they can force Intel to break physical barriers, and make materials do things they simply can not?? AMD might have helped in the past, but you sound insane.
He's not calling himself a scientist, but a "science guy". Calling yourself a "medicine guy" is not the same as calling yourself a doctor, neither is "law guy" the same as a lawyer, or "shoot black people guy" same as police officer. Get a grip.
Stop trying to make excuses! You sound ridiculous! Your quote, which you seem to agree with, even states that it was a process *created* by *a creator*. The mechanics might not have been his, but the process was entirely his. Theists are funny.
If by "other" you mean "developing or recently-developed", then you are correct. If you compare the US to the rest of the developed world, it's tragically behind.
You are conflating copyright infringement (downloading from TPB) with commercial copyright infringement (selling copies). Don't. It makes you look ridiculous. Stealing is depriving others of their property. Copying something deprives no-one of their property. Downloading from TPB is as much stealing as looking at someone is kidnap.