Comments David Nicholson has made

3x the mileage, but 10x the miles

He is one of many super-commuting hybrid owners who get the HOV lane to themselves in CA. At highway speeds he gets 50-60 mpg. I get 20. He burns at least double the gasoline, all things considered.On California vehicles to get global warming stickers posted 1 year, 8 months ago 15 Responses

Less power, fewer people.

Why is the left incapable of having a reasoned conversation about energy alternatives? Large scale solar concentrators can deliver electricity at roughly double the cost of nuclear power when the worst case is applied to the end to end cost of nuclear power. A nuclear plant built 30 years ago was capable of generating an average amount of power  requiring more than 3000 acres of solar concentrators today. 4 times the size of Central Park. Peak power 7500 acres. 5 square miles of land. Power for the US? 60,000 square miles for PV. The size of the Pantanal region of South America.

Does changing the albedo of that much land have no consequence?

If this is really about Climate Change as opposed to the furthering of a political ideology, then you would consider the benefits of all possible solutions.

But that isn't what AGW is really about, is it?

You have already established that you don't want cheap power. In other words, you have decided how I should live. You already politically dominate me. I pay $.38 a kwh based upon the progressive rate scheme you support.  Who is the fascist? You shut down our local nuclear plant 20 years early based upon a Hollywood movie. Not science.

The number of humans the planet can support is determined by our ability to adapt and solve complex problems. Not by tyrants like yourself. You come from a long line of discredited, misguided genocidal lunatics. Malthus. Sanger. Carlson. Tens of millions dead in their wake.

So, limiting the number of people on the planet is your real goal. Are you going to start with the brown ones?

It doesn't take much to ferret out the real motivation behind your views.

You need to learn how to lie like Al Gore. He never admits that he wants less brown people because they absorb too much sunlight and heat the atmosphere.On What drives climate change denial? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 34 Responses

Arrogance and condescension

Quit wasting time with "denier". Just say what you fink (feel-think). You fink we are Infidels. Infidels "making war" on science. Hell, we are terrorists. And anti-intellectual to boot.

Anyone who disagreed with the Nuclear Winter "consensus" was deemed anti-intellectual. After all, "they" elected Reagan. Only the addled minded could possibly disagree with the likes of Carl Sagan when he asserted that there would be "a year without a Summer" if the Kuwaiti oil fields were to be set ablaze. Likely the ocean's phyto-plankton would die off and throw us into a death sprial.

Why would any sane person listen to any doom scenario proposed by the self identified political left without skepticism? They have been wrong about so much in the past. Wrong and cocksure and arrogant and condescending.

I sit here paying $.38 a kwh for electricity, absolutely certain that if AGW were truly a concern, Al Gore would be insisting that we embark upon the "moral equivalent of war" and race to build nuclear power plants. Eliminate coal and oil from the grid. Provide clean power for plug-in hybrid cars. Zero emissions for more and more miles. Cut my electric bill by 2/3. The rational know that wind and solar and geothermal and hemp oil are not the answer. I would love to give OPEC the finger.

But sadly, AGW is not about climate change at all. It is a political movement. It is embarrassing to see so many intelligent, well meaning folks reduced to "useful idiot" status by Big Climate.On What drives climate change denial? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 34 Responses

Carl Sagan: Disingenuous boob

1991:

If the Kuwaiti oil fields are set ablaze the resulting smoke and soot will enter Earth's upper atmosphere and we will experience "Nuclear Winter". A year without a Summer. The consensus among scientists is overwhelming regarding this point.

The resulting die off of oxygen producing phyto-plankton in the world's oceans could spell the death of our species.

*

I did not suggest anything about any trend in temperatures. That would be silly. I don't know what the climate will be like in ten years. I just know that it will continue to change as it always has.

*

Ted Danson was kind enough to let us know about the consensus that the oceans would be dead by the mid 1990s. This would happen because we were reaching a tipping point. Man was throwing the oceans into an imbalance that was beyond recovery.

Any questioning of this "fact" was met with jeers and sneers.

*On Climate science doesn't rely on a consensus of opinion posted 1 year, 9 months ago 16 Responses

What set of gathered data would prove you wrong?

What data gathered over the next decade would cause you to conclude that humankind's effect on the climate is not a cause for alarm/ doesn't warrant drastic measures in terms of curbing CO2 emissions/is irrelevant when compared with "natural causes" etc.

What are some key markers that will bear out the theory/hypothesis you support regarding AGW or AGCC?

I would like to see some time capsule predictions that we can all review in 10 years.  

My boyhood idol, Carl Sagan, cited "nuclear winter" science and claimed that if the Kuwaiti oil fields were set ablaze, the world's climate would be characterized by a "year without a summer" with devastating effects. He and the rest of the "nuclear winter" folks were wrong. Now the very same people call me a "denier" when I question there theory/hypothesis regarding AGW/AGCC?

* I use theory/hypothesis to avoid the navel gazing argument regarding the proper use of the terms. Pick the on that pleases you and I will stipulate that you are correct.On A new climate science paper calls for dramatic action posted 1 year, 9 months ago 26 Responses