Technology helping solar farms counter growing hailstone threat

submitted by ActuallyNot from theguardian.com

all 8 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]ShoahKahn 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

"...because of climate change"

Stopped reading right there.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You're one of these people who are offended that science is keeping on despite all the money spent by the fossil fuel industry to obfuscate it?

Weird.

[–]ShoahKahn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

In between mercury fillings, asbestos building materials, leaded fuel, Thalidomide morning sickness cures, upside-down food pyramid etc., did the "safe and effective" $cience tell you that 0.0012% increase of a gas over a period of 150+ years -- a gas whose content has a strict effect threshold; after which point, it no longer has any effect, no matter how much more is added -- cannot meaningfully change the atmosphere of a satellite in this solar system?

Well, if not, then they certainly wouldn't have told you how they arrived at the infamous "97% of scientists agree" meme... 😏

https://realclimatescience.com/

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

In between mercury fillings, asbestos building materials, leaded fuel, Thalidomide morning sickness cures, upside-down food pyramid etc.,

Things that science found out about and improved.

In the case of thalidomide, the uncertainly was recognised in America, and the problem never occurred.

Where are you from?

did the "safe and effective" $cience

Other way around. Fossil fuels are 7 trillion dollar a year industry. Science pays fuck all. So the industry can produce a lot of misinformation to convince people that the science is wrong.

It worked so well for the tobacco industry that the fossil fuel industry hired the same people.

a gas whose content has a strict effect threshold; after which point, it no longer has any effect, no matter how much more is added

No. The climate sensitivity has been robustly over 1.5°C per doubling throughout the past 420 million years, including times with higher CO2 concentrations.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17392784/

Well, if not, then they certainly wouldn't have told you how they arrived at the infamous "97% of scientists agree" meme...

Connell got to "over 99.9% of papers" by surveying 88,125 climate-related studies.

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

But there's several literature reviews or and surveys of scientists that reach the same ball-park.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

realclimatescience.com

Case in point about the fo$$il fuel funded misinformation.

[–]ShoahKahn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's all parroted lies coming ignorance and a compulsion to self-delude to buttress preconceive notions, and/or garble... And judging by said nature of the claims, me making the modicum effort to present evidence to refute it all, would be waste of my time -- the neural pathways are already wired, and cannot perform remote electro-shock therapy to re-wire them. So, good luck to you... You're gonna need it 👌🏻😑

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

CG>That's all parroted lies coming from ignorance and a compulsion to self-delude to buttress preconceive notions, and/or garble...

Kid, you were just linked to scientific sources that refute the parroted lies coming ignorance and a compulsion to self-delude to buttress preconceive notions, and/or garble in your grandparent comment.

And judging by said nature of the claims, me making the modicum effort to present evidence to refute it all, would be waste of my time

Trying to refute any of them, much less them all, would be impossible, because the nature of them is that I linked to actual facts, and truth is objective.

You linked to a fossil fuel funded denialist blog site, ffs. One with a URL chosen to collect some of the traffic trying to get to https://www.realclimate.org/ where some of today's most highly cited climate scientists actually post.

And that's related to why both of your claims were so readily shown to be false.

You have responded to a comment that gives explicit refutation of your points with a combination of contradiction, tone response and ad hominem. I have left your comment up this time, but encourage you to look at the saidit pyramid of debate, and saidit values, and do better in your future comments.

[–]Alaska2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Those who support wars, debt, and tyranny sound like paid shills for the elites.

[–]GuyWhite 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, the solution to the hailstone problem is to burn more coal.