|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Breaking the Climate Spell /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1534255585 Message started by WebsterMark on 08/14/18 at 07:06:24 |
|
Title: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by WebsterMark on 08/14/18 at 07:06:24 Trump refusing to drive off the cliff with everyone else will save not just the US, but many other nations as well. https://www.weeklystandard.com/rupert-darwall/breaking-the-climate-spell |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/14/18 at 11:13:35 Paywall, can't read it |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by Eegore on 08/14/18 at 12:43:16 I just had to click the X on the paywall image. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by verslagen1 on 08/14/18 at 13:18:51 His ken doll needs viagra. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/14/18 at 17:11:49 Is it a Low blow If it's true? And why is Viagra so (Dare I? ) Hard to get? |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by WebsterMark on 08/15/18 at 08:59:34 part of the article below; too long to post. the clifnotes version is getting out of the Paris Agreement will benefit the world in the long run by 1) breaking the 'spell' climate change has on world and corporate leaders and 2) saving lives and increasing prosperity of the 3rd world's suffering poor. Getting out of the Paris Agreement was just the first step on the road to a realist global energy policy. Thirteen years ago, a Republican president who had pulled the United States out of an onerous climate treaty faced isolation at the annual gathering of Western leaders. “Tony Blair is contemplating an unprecedented rift with the U.S. over climate change at the G8 summit next week, which will lead to a final communiqué agreed by seven countries with President George Bush left out on a limb,” the Guardian reported of the meeting at Gleneagles, Scotland. France and Germany preferred an unprecedented split communiqué to a weak one, the article said. George W. Bush, who had pulled the country out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2003, blinked and agreed to an official document that affirmed global warming was occurring and that “we know enough to act now.” The 2005 G8 put the United States back on the path that ultimately led through the Copenhagen climate summit—when China and India thwarted U.S.-led attempts at a global climate treaty—to the Paris Agreement 11 years later. There was a very different American president this June at the Charlevoix G7 (as it has been since Russia’s suspension in 2014). Had it not been for the row with Justin Trudeau, when the Canadian prime minister responded to President Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs with retaliatory tariffs of his own, the big story would have been the climate split. Where 15 years ago the mere possibility of isolation pushed Bush to compromise, Trump embraced the isolation and inserted an America-only paragraph into the summit communiqué outlining a position fundamentally contradicting the rest of the group’s. “The United States believes sustainable economic growth and development depends on universal access to affordable and reliable energy resources,” it reads, going on to offer a manifesto for global energy realism. That single paragraph is more definitive than the president’s announcement last August that the United States would be withdrawing from the Paris treaty. After all, George W. Bush nixed the Kyoto Protocol that Bill Clinton signed. And Trump, when announcing the Paris withdrawal, left the door open to U.S. participation in a renegotiated climate deal. At Charlevoix, he closed it. Unlike in 2005, it’s very hard now to see any way back. This is about far more than process. Trump is breaking the spell of inevitability of the transition to renewable energy. The impression of irresistible momentum has been one of the most potent tools in enforcing compliance with the climate catechism. Like socialism, the clean-energy transition will fail because it doesn’t work. But it requires strong leadership to avoid the ruin that will disprove the false promise of cost-free decarbonization. That reality is already hurting those countries that are farther down the renewable-energy path of ruin than the United States—and, when offered the chance, voters are taking it out on politicians. In March, a fanatically pro-wind and solar energy Labor government in South Australia, one of the eight states and territories that make up the country, decided to make the state elections a referendum on renewable energy. With some of the world’s most expensive electricity and a serious blackout in 2016, South Australia voters kicked out Labor and voted in a government vowing to repeal the state’s renewable-energy target. Days before Justin Trudeau took the center of the global stage as host of the G7 summit, his Liberal party was trounced in provincial elections in Ontario. The province’s party had won four consecutive terms in office and had pressed virtually every pro-renewable, anti-hydrocarbon policy imaginable. In the June 7 elections, they took just seven seats in the 124-seat legislature. “I made a promise to the people that we would take immediate action to scrap the cap-and-trade carbon tax and bring their gas prices down,” newly elected premier Doug Ford announced. Nowhere has confrontation with the physical and economic realities of renewable energy been more painful than Germany, the birthplace of renewable-energy ideology. As party leaders negotiated a new coalition agreement after the September 2017 elections, they acknowledged for the first time that Germany was going to miss the sacrosanct 2020 target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels. This had been set in 2007, and the first 20 percent had been easy. Thanks to German reunification, the former East Germany had seen its industries collapse, and there were plenty of inefficient power stations to close. It had always been clear, Angela Merkel declared three weeks after the September federal elections, that it was not going to be easy to cut the other 20 percent “at a time of relatively strong economic growth.” Note: Stronger growth equals higher emissions. Launching the German renewables transition in 2004, energy minister Jürgen Trittin promised that it would put no more than the cost of an ice cream on monthly electricity bills. Nine years later, his successor, Peter Altmaier, admitted that the costs could amount to $1.34 trillion by the end of the 2030s. At a meeting in June of E.U. energy ministers, Germany ran up the white flag. Altmaier shocked fellow E.U. energy ministers by rejecting higher renewable-energy targets. “We’re not going to manage that,” he told them. “Nowhere in Europe is going to manage that. Even if we did manage to get enough electric cars, we wouldn’t have enough renewable energy to keep them on the road.” No country has a greater abundance of hydrocarbon energy than the United States. The corollary is that no country was as big a loser from participating in the Paris Agreement and its intention to progressively decarbonize the world’s hydrocarbon superpower. On July 10, the Energy Information Administration forecast that next year, the United States will produce 12 million barrels of oil a day and overtake Saudi Arabia to be the world’s number-one producer. When it comes to the politics of energy, the interests of the United States and European green ideology are irreconcilable. Donald Trump understands this. “Our country is blessed with extraordinary energy abundance, which we didn’t know of even 5 years ago and certainly 10 years ago,” the president said in 2017. Those remarks were not only a paean to America’s energy resources, they were a full-dress rejection of the policies of his predecessor and of the Democrats’ goal of Europeanizing American energy policy. We have nearly 100 years’ worth of natural gas and more than 250 years’ worth of clean, beautiful coal. We are a top producer of petroleum and the number-one producer of natural gas. We have so much more than we ever thought possible. We are really in the driving seat. And you know what? We don’t want to let other countries take away our sovereignty and tell us what to do and how to do it. That’s not going to happen. With these incredible resources, my administration will seek not only American energy independence that we’ve been looking for for so long, but American energy dominance. And we’re going to be an exporter—exporter. We will be dominant. We will export American energy all over the world, all around the globe. These energy exports will create countless jobs for our people, and provide true energy security to our friends, partners, and allies all across the globe. For the first time since 1992, when George H.W. Bush went to the Rio Earth Summit, an American president was outlining a global energy strategy diametrically opposed to the tenets underlying the U.N. climate process. Trump was establishing a rival pole based on energy realism and energy abundance. The Rio Summit was the brainchild of Canadian Maurice Strong, and he understood that what most motivates political leaders, bureaucrats, and corporate CEOs is the fear of being left out. “The process is the policy,” Strong said, and the annual climate conferences that have been held since the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted in Rio created a sense of irresistible momentum. It’s that spell Trump is now breaking. Countries around the world are being damaged by the anti-hydrocarbon policies encouraged by the U.N., but leaving the Paris Agreement was a step only the United States was strong enough to take. Now it is up to the Trump administration to help other countries act in their economic interests. Energy secretary Rick Perry has talked of U.S. willingness to lead a global alliance of countries wanting to make fossil fuels cleaner rather than abandoning them. Of the G7, Japan has traditionally been most leery of decarbonization, and after the 2011 Fukushima accident Japan decided to expand its coal-fired generating capacity by half, building 45 new coal power stations. Poland is another coal-based economy that has no intention of phasing out coal. Of all energy-realist nations, Poland is the one that sees eye to eye with the Trump administration. During the Brezhnev years, Poland—alone of the Eastern Bloc nations—refused to sign up to sulphur-emission cuts designed to isolate the U.K. and the United States at the height of the acid rain scare. As host of the next round of U.N. climate talks, at Katowice in December, Poland is more than usually important as a U.S. energy ally. Australia, the world’s largest coal exporter, is another obvious U.S. partner. Where the United States can make the biggest difference, though, is with the developing nations who depend on overseas finance to build out their electrical grids and need the cheap, reliable energy only coal can supply. Last September, Southeast Asian energy ministers, noting the rising use of coal in the region, called for greater promotion of clean coal. In June, India struck a strategic energy partnership with the United States, described by Perry as an “amazing opportunity for U.S. energy” to sell clean coal, nuclear technology, oil, and gas. In October 2016, Nigeria’s finance minister, Kemi Adeosun, railed against the West’s energy imperialism and the hypocrisy of using coal to industrialize and then denying it to Africans. “By telling us not to use coal they are pushing us into the destructive cycle of underdevelopment; while you have the competitive advantages, you tie our hands behind us,” she said. Denying the world’s poor cheap electricity is the official policy of the World Bank. In 2012, Barack Obama agreed to the appointment of Jim Yong Kim as president of the World Bank, and the next year, the bank stopped the financing of coal-fired generation. Although the Trump administration publicly opposes the coal ban and the United States has the largest number of votes at the World Bank, the institution is doubling down on its anti-fossil-fuel agenda. At Emmanuel Macron’s climate summit in December 2017, Kim announced the bank was extending the financing ban to upstream oil and gas. Here is the first order of business for a global energy alliance—to pressure the World Bank to lift its hydrocarbon financing bans and serve the world’s poor rather than sacrifice them to a regressive climate agenda. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/15/18 at 09:33:38 "We have nearly 100 years’ worth of natural gas and more than 250 years’ worth of clean, beautiful coal." There is no such thing. "Clean coal" refers to the complex and expensive scrubbing of the emissions from burning coal. I wonder, does this all come down to denying that man made climate change is real? If anyone thinks it's a "Chinese hoax", they're wrong. (just like our orange president) |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/15/18 at 09:54:39 362827262B362D30420 wrote:
You deny the different types of coal? All coal is the same? Looks like you're a Science Denier. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/15/18 at 10:19:51 5E4147405D5A6B5B6B53414D06340 wrote:
You deny the different types of coal? No, there are some that burn more efficiently, but they all produce emissions - ie, they're dirty. All coal is the same? No - see above. Looks like you're a Science Denier. [/quote] Again, I've never denied that carbon content varies between coal deposits. What I do deny is that coal - any coal - is "clean". |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/15/18 at 10:49:28 You can pretend that I didn't use Cleanest.. And you can choose to pretend that what was said was all inclusive. If it's technologically and economically viable to scrub the exhaust, then using it is clean. But you need it spelled out every time coal is discussed, or someone is lying. You know about scrubbers. Anyone who has been paying enough attention to have an opinion probably knows. Quit splitting hairs. Admit that there is a YUGE quantity of coal that is very low in sulfur that Clinton made off limits that could have been used to create jobs, eliminating the need for nuclear power plants in places, eliminating the creation of deadly wastes that will be deadly for thousands of years, but you would let Good be the victim of perfect, while you support what you've been told are Clean energy ideas. No, they are not so clean nor are they so innocuous. Nor are they so dependable. Sun and wind aren't always there. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/15/18 at 11:32:24 617E787F62655464546C7E72390B0 wrote:
You're trying to tell me that solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and the like are dirty? Seems you might be mistaken. Yes, there might be byproducts of these, but nothing nearly as bad as fossil fuels. Think about what Elon Musk has said: “If you wanted to power the entire United States with solar panels, it would take a fairly small corner of Nevada or Texas or Utah; you only need about 100 miles by 100 miles of solar panels to power the entire United States,” Musk said at at the event in Rhode Island. “The batteries you need to store the energy, so you have 24/7 power, is 1 mile by 1 mile. One square-mile.” There's money where his mouth is - https://jsis.washington.edu/news/puerto-rico-a-grid-for-the-future/ |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/15/18 at 11:41:30 ou're trying to tell me that solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and the like are dirty? Seems you Geothermal is clean, but the others aren't as clean or dependable as you seem to believe. I explained earlier. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by LostArtist on 08/15/18 at 11:47:34 637C7A7D60675666566E7C703B090 wrote:
What JOG is saying here, is that the manufacturing of batteries, wind mill parts and the construction there of, and all the construction and transportation of all that stuff, that creates pollution. So they aren't 100% clean... and some of that stuff uses highly toxic and corrosive and nasty stuff to make that tools of "clean energy" . but, there is a "healthy" balance here. it's not all one or the other. everything we do now, can be MORE efficient, and will be, but this actually requires that evil of evil words "regulation" cause the free market just isn't interested, for the most part. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by LostArtist on 08/15/18 at 11:49:48 3B242225383F0E3E0E36242863510 wrote:
no, you didn't explain earlier. I did it for you though, you're welcome and by your standards, Geothermal isn't clean either, it still needs a manufactured turbine, lots of wire and construction and all that as well. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/15/18 at 11:53:30 2F3036312C2B1A2A1A22303C77450 wrote:
They are far, FAR cleaner that ANY fossil fuel. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/15/18 at 11:55:54 The free market is very interested. Without profitability, which is a direct offshoot of desirability, which is dependent on the dependability and longevity of the equipment, the market can't afford to pursue manufacturing what consumers don't want. Thankfully, enough people have built off grid and people in towns have decided to jump in. It's getting closer to economic viability. And I think it's getting less complicate .. I support solar and prefer t over those windmills.. People have been working on the problems. It's much more workable, (Talking solar ) than ever before. Those windmills that line the horizon in west Texas are not working out, IMO. In the meantime Unlocking the Low Sulfur coal looks a lot smarter than nuclear. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/15/18 at 11:59:47 6A757374696E5F6F5F67757932000 wrote:
No, it's not smarter, only cheaper. And the coal industry owns mitch and his buddies (along with some corporate dems). |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/15/18 at 12:06:37 How's fukushima doing again? |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/15/18 at 12:27:33 4F5056514C4B7A4A7A42505C17250 wrote:
Poorly. How are Arkansas Nuclear 1, Arkansas Nuclear 2, Beaver Valley 1, Beaver Valley 2, Braidwood 1, Braidwood 2, Browns Ferry 1, Browns Ferry 2, Browns Ferry 3, Brunswick 1, Brunswick 2, Byron 1, Byron 2, Callaway, Calvert Cliffs 1, Calvert Cliffs 2, Catawba 1, Catawba 2, Clinton, Columbia Generating Station, Comanche Peak 1, Comanche Peak 2, Cooper, D.C. Cook 1, D.C. Cook 2, Davis-Besse, Diablo Canyon 1, Diablo Canyon 2, Dresden 2, Dresden 3, Duane Arnold, Farley 1, Farley 2, Fermi 2, FitzPatrick, Ginna, Grand Gulf 1, Harris 1, Hatch 1, Hatch 2, Hope Creek 1, Indian Point 2, Indian Point 3, La Salle 1, La Salle 2, Limerick 1, Limerick 2, McGuire 1, McGuire 2, Millstone 2, Millstone 3, Monticello, Nine Mile Point 1, Nine Mile Point 2, North Anna 1, North Anna 2, Oconee 1, Oconee 2, Oconee 3, Oyster Creek, Palisades, Palo Verde 1, Palo Verde 2, Palo Verde 3, Peach Bottom 2, Peach Bottom 3, Perry 1, Pilgrim 1, Point Beach 1, Point Beach 2, Prairie Island 1, Prairie Island 2, Quad Cities 1, Quad Cities 2, River Bend 1, Robinson 2, Saint Lucie 1, Saint Lucie 2, Salem 1, Salem 2, Seabrook 1, Sequoyah 1, Sequoyah 2, South Texas 1, South Texas 2, Summer, Surry 1, Surry 2, Susquehanna 1, Susquehanna 2, Three Mile Island 1, Turkey Point 3, Turkey Point 4, Vogtle 1, Vogtle 2, Waterford 3, Watts Bar 1, Watts Bar 2, Wolf Creek 1 doing again? It seems you take the worst example of something and then equate everything else in that category in the same way. That's not smart. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by LostArtist on 08/15/18 at 12:33:14 37282E2934330232023A28246F5D0 wrote:
how's the Gulf Of Mexico doing after BP, Exxon Valdeez?? not to mention this list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills#Confirmed_Spills and then, your buddy coal here, well, he's just trying to kill you, no worries "For every 4.5 coal mining jobs supported by the drafted policy, one American would die from the surge in air pollution tied to generating electricity from the fossil fuel, according to modeling by the independent, nonprofit research group Resources for the Future." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-05/trump-plan-to-save-coal-said-to-put-lives-at-risk-from-pollution |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/15/18 at 14:32:27 Unless you're willing to accept things that you're not likely to accept, you don't want to talk about how the BP mess came about. I've explained that before, too. In short, they broke every rule for containing down hole pressures by pumping off drilling mud and replacing it with sea water. Engineers refused, and were fired. Until the deciders found people who would do the things that any roughneck knows not to do. As for the model that says coal kills, IDK, maybe so. As for the nuclear plants that haven't blown up Yeehaa! But how many absolutely horrendous problems can the planet absorb? Funny how little coverage we get on fukushima. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/15/18 at 14:53:47 4F5056514C4B7A4A7A42505C17250 wrote:
Here's an interesting little tidbit that you won't enjoy: http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html And another, older study states: A 2002 review by the IAE put together existing studies to compare fatalities per unit of power produced for several leading energy sources. The agency examined the life cycle of each fuel from extraction to post-use and included deaths from accidents as well as long-term exposure to emissions or radiation. Nuclear came out best, and coal was the deadliest energy source. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power/ So... um, yeah. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by WebsterMark on 08/15/18 at 15:02:52 But how many absolutely horrendous problems can the planet absorb? The answer to how many is apparently every single one since we're all still here. The Paris Climate Agreement would have accomplished nothing even for the most fervent Climate Change Chicken-Little congregant. It was like saying you'll go on a diet by cutting your daily 1500 calorie bowl of ice crème but substituting 1600 calories of cookies. Every single reduction from the US & Europe would have been more than erased by the growing coal plants in China & India. To continue the diet metaphor, the promise was after you get your full of cookies, you'd get serious about losing weight. Yea, that ain't gonna happen. The other main point is continuing this charade that solar and wind are going to power the world condemns hundreds of millions if not billions, to lifelong poverty. It's easy for us to talk about the need to cut back when that cutting back is, at most, a slight inconvenience. Musk can talk nonsense about a little bit of land here for panels and turbines and a little bit of land there for batteries, but no one believes that's true. He's a street corner preacher; his heart might be in the right place, but his head is out to lunch. The Climate Change 'deniers' are the only ones actually following the science. The spell is slowly being broken because nothing remotely close to the temps predicted are occurring. Linking every single storm, heatwave, coldwave or fire to climate change has worn thin with everyone. I believe most people are like me. Sure, its a virtual certainty mankind's activity have affected the climate. it would be hard to believe we haven't. I'm sitting on the 6th floor of a hotel room in Los Angeles looking out over LAX airport. This is the definition of concrete jungle. How could we NOT impact the climate. The only trees and plants I can see are decorative. There's not an indigenous plant for miles. But, and this is the crux of the matter, to what degree (pardon the pun) has everything we've done altered the natural ebb and flow of climate? And what is that ebb and flow anyway? I've mentioned this before with no suitable answer given but if you were to turn back time just a millisecond of the earth's geological clock, 15,000 - 20,000 years, and travel to the banks of Lake Michigan in downtown Chicago, you'd be very disappointed because you'd be standing on a thick glacier of ice. The Great Lakes weren't there. They formed when glaciers retreated just a short time ago in geological time. My thoughts on the matter of climate change are based on reading numerous arguments from both sides and my observation over the past 40 years or so since I've been an adult. And none of us, not a single person on this forum, can point to, with absolute certainty a physical alteration observed in their lifetime due to climate change. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/15/18 at 15:10:29 685A5D4C4B5A4D725E4D543F0 wrote:
Um, a human life is what, an average of 80 years? In that time, at least the first 16 or so DGAF about anything. You're not going to see a noticeable climate change in the span of 60 or so years. This isn't a movie like 2012. It happens over hundreds of years. All you have to do is look a the rate of change since the industrialized era. That pretty much says it all. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by LostArtist on 08/15/18 at 15:11:06 405F595E43447545754D5F53182A0 wrote:
maybe solar, but didn't Trump jus put tariffs on that... huh? but fuel efficient cars, nah, no one wants them, they'd still rather have the V-8 and the POWER!!! and the big lifted trucks with the "rolling coal" |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by raydawg on 08/15/18 at 15:28:33 This is funny, it’s either all or nothing, just like socialism..... Maybe in the future coal can be used in a better manner that doesn’t pollute, etc. Look how small batteries have become, and with LED lighting, less power needed, last longer, and shines way brighter. I love them sleeping on my boat. Funny how folks think small, and rigid, depending on their needs and beliefs.... SING IT JOHNNIE...... Imaging if ( blank ) It’s easy if you try..... :) |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/15/18 at 15:36:44 10031B06031505620 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by WebsterMark on 08/15/18 at 17:36:41 Um, a human life is what, an average of 80 years? In that time, at least the first 16 or so DGAF about anything. You're not going to see a noticeable climate change in the span of 60 or so years. This isn't a movie like 2012. It happens over hundreds of years. All you have to do is look a the rate of change since the industrialized era. That pretty much says it all. No, we were told we'd see it by now. That's what the whole point is. By now, we were to be noticeably warmer with real physical changes to the environment. None of that has happened. I'm half a mile from the ocean, many said LAX would be underwater by now. And okay, since the industrialized era, what has happened? Nothing of significance. It certainly doesn't warrant condemning millions to misery and it doesn't warrant destroying economies. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by raydawg on 08/15/18 at 17:55:08 Why do you guys argue extremes? Honestly, who would want to ruin the economy.....???? That doesn’t make any sense. And yes, the gloom and doom scare tactics of under water cities, etc, is all high pressured sales mentality. We need to stop the partisan crud and find sensible, workable, ideas. Being good stewards of our planet is a no brainer, I think everyone can agree on that, yes? |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/15/18 at 21:28:07 457770616677605F736079120 wrote:
Well, millions will suffer and economies will disintegrate if there's nothing done about climate change. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by WebsterMark on 08/16/18 at 05:00:13 Well, millions will suffer and economies will disintegrate if there's nothing done about climate change. You're supposed to represent the party of science but that statement is completely unknowable. How do you know that? Whose to say a couple of degrees won't actually have a net positive? Couldn't land lost to higher ocean levels mean land gained in northern climates? Longer growing seasons. Far more people die from cold weather than die from hot weather. Isn't the whole premise of global warming centered around what's done in one part of the globe changes another part? If the climate in St Louis evolved to match the climate of Atlanta, you're positive that would be bad? No one knows that with certainty. The climate change spell is being broken finally because predictions made 20 years ago about the conditions we should be living in today have not even remotely materialized. It was a theory which seems to be only partially correct. The effects of human activity have only fractionally increased temperatures, not dramatically as predicted. There were and maybe always will be too many variables to account for. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/16/18 at 05:50:08 0D3F38292E3F28173B28315A0 wrote:
I (and most scientists) disagree. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by WebsterMark on 08/16/18 at 06:30:10 Well, scientists - because so far, it's made things worse. Look at CA as just one example. What about CA? I'm in LA right now by the way. The fires everyone is talking about? What proof is there they are worse? I was here last year during the heavy rains and flooding. It was naturally proclaimed the worst ever and more proof of climate change, but as only a few publications pointed out, in 1861 it rained far worse. The flooding would have wiped out most of central CA's produce fields. Fires seem worse today because houses are destroyed but 200 years ago, whose to say? Didn't you just tell me 60 years or so is too short a timeframe? Couldn't land lost to higher ocean levels mean land gained in northern climates? Longer growing seasons. Maybe in a few areas, but most others will suffer droughts, or flooding with no middle ground. They WILL SUFFER? Really? You're sure about that? Who told you that? The same people who told you by now we'd be far warmer than we actually are? Far more people die from cold weather than die from hot weather. Isn't the whole premise of global warming centered around what's done in one part of the globe changes another part? If the climate in St Louis evolved to match the climate of Atlanta, you're positive that would be bad? What happens in Atlanta then - record high temps? Record high by how much? No one knows that with certainty. I'd say that the scientific community can tell with some degree of certainty. They were certain the temp would be higher today that it actually is. They were absolutely certain. Now they're trying to figure out why they were so wrong. The climate change spell is being broken finally because predictions made 20 years ago about the conditions we should be living in today have not even remotely materialized. It was a theory which seems to be only partially correct. The effects of human activity have only fractionally increased temperatures, not dramatically as predicted. There were and maybe always will be too many variables to account for. I (and most scientists) disagree. There's a story known as The Piltdown Man. When evolutionary studies were first taking off, a few bones were 'found' that many jumped on as another evolutionary link in human development. I don't know the specific details of what made them so significant, but it was a big deal that altered the direction of evolutionary study. A few scientist had their doubts, but work progress in another direction by most scientist based on those bones. Many PhD thesis were no doubt written and vast sums of money spent. At some point, maybe 25 years later, it was proven the bones were from a pig or something like that. It had been a fraud all along. Look it up, I'm going from memory and I'm sure some of the details are wrong. The point is, what we are sure about today, we often find out tomorrow we were wrong about. The fact that 20 years ago, predictions were promised that have not occurred, should give us all pause. Maybe, it's not nearly as bad as it seems. Maybe, there's way to many variables to predict. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by MnSpring on 08/16/18 at 06:47:03 253B343538253E23510 wrote:
Absoulaty amazing. I can remember a time, when the scientists all screamed, ICE AGE is coming. We are not even out if the last one, yet the new one is coming very soon ! (Nothing was said about how long, ‘very soon’ was though) Then much later, their was the Big Hole in the Ozone, everyone is going to fry, and it’s all Hair Spray, and Right Guard’s fault. (How many have never held up a Bic lighter, and a can of Right Guard) Then later, it was ‘Global Warming’, and soon it will be 70 degrees in Winnipeg in Jan. Well then it changed to, ‘Climate Change’. But it’s still happening very rapidly. (Although no-one, again, ever outlined proof of, ‘how’ rapid) Now, the, ‘expert’, T&T, says, “… You’re not going to see a noticeable climate change in the span of 60 or so years. …” “…It happens over hundreds of years…” Hmmmm. Wonder what could happen in, hundreds of years? After all. Only 49 years ago, it took 3 years to build the most advanced Computer ever, to help guide Man to the Moon. And it took up the space in the rocket, orbiting module, and landing module. Today, their is MORE, computer power in your Cell phone. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by raydawg on 08/16/18 at 07:03:00 today, their is MORE, computer power in your Cell phone. EXACTLY !!!!! We do not know where/what energy will look like in a decade. You very well might have a "chip" of some kind that generates enough power to drive a car, etc.... However, don't let the screaming go to waste. I posted out about not letting the wild fires go to waste, as Brown went begging..... This is what politics have evolved to. No longer do we seek solutions, no, only opportunities to empower our own self. Oh well, it does provide a good example of insanity. acting crazy ;D |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by MnSpring on 08/16/18 at 07:26:26 Let me get this straight. On another topic, (Never mind…….) T&T says: “…there is no such thing as mining "clean coal". Coal is coal is coal….” “… I hate to break your bubble, but there is no such thing as mining “clean coal”….” “…Anything that burns is dirty….” etc, etc, etc, Then others post, that their different kinds of coal, several times. and one of them is, ‘cleaner’, than others. Which you lauded to several times it is not !. Now Solar/Wind/Water/Etc are, ‘cleaner’. to which you admit below: “…LOL - seriously mn? That is a silly argument. All the energy produced from these sources is clean. No emissions….” Yet you equate the Building and maintaining those things, and the eventual disposal, are not ‘clean’. “…the building of the structures, etc. are not “clean”, but then, neither are the massive scrubbers for coal….” That’s exactly the same as someone saying; ‘look at my hybrid car, it gets 50+ MPG, look how I am saving the planet’ Hmmm, the plastic the car is made from, came from, where ? How was it heated and molded ? How is it recycled ? What is the battery made of ? How is that recycled ? What items are used, in the melting/crushing/machine, of a recycling process ? How were the recycling machines made ? So which is it ? Do we work with something that is, ‘cleaner’, and keep going in that direction? Or do we abandon ALL things, because they are NOT, perfectly Clean ? “…Anything that burns is dirty….” |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/16/18 at 07:56:55 61427F5C5E45424B2C0 wrote:
It's really not that hard to understand. I think you're making it more difficult on purpose. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by MnSpring on 08/16/18 at 08:49:14 3C222D2C213C273A480 wrote:
First the 'Hybrid' car, Today, takes Much more, "...manufacturing techniques ..." than, "...conventional cars...". And is, 'dirtier' ! “… but in its lifetime it will emit FAR LESS EMISSIONS than a conventional car….” Wrong ! Take one, put 300,000 miles on one in 20 years, (say your are lucky), change out the battery only 2 times. (that would mean, 3 batteries) That, ‘hybrid’, produced MORE pollution, Over its life time, then a 70’s muscle car getting, 10 MPG, in the same time. Starting with the oil/steel/etc., in the ground, to both being completely dismantled, and turned into other things. (Now for the Panty in a Bunch people) Is a Hybrid car, now better than a 70’s muscle car ? Well in the 70’s, gas at .25 cents, YEA. Today, NO. Should everybody go back that the 70’s car ? I don’t think so for everyday driving. All Cars, (including hybrids) are better today, and will be better tomorrow. And as we have learned to do some, recycling a circuit board, that also will get much better. OH: "...Just because it burns more efficiently doesn't make it cleaner. ..." Think someone needs to go back to school. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/16/18 at 09:31:59 10330E2D2F34333A5D0 wrote:
First the 'Hybrid' car, Today, takes Much more, "...manufacturing techniques ..." than, "...conventional cars...". And is, 'dirtier' ! Do you have proof of that? Even if it does, over its lifetime that car will pollute less. But I'd like to see the proof of what you say. “… but in its lifetime it will emit FAR LESS EMISSIONS than a conventional car….”[/color] Wrong ! Take one, put 300,000 miles on one in 20 years, (say your are lucky), change out the battery only 2 times. (that would mean, 3 batteries) What point are you trying to make? First off, hybrids have only been around for about 10 years - in another 10, battery technology will far more efficient and less wasteful. Second, how many conventional cars could even make it to 300K miles? Again, provide some sort of proof other than just saying "wrong". This is a silly straw man mn. That, ‘hybrid’, produced MORE pollution, Over its life time, then a 70’s muscle car getting, 10 MPG, in the same time. Starting with the oil/steel/etc., in the ground, to both being completely dismantled, and turned into other things. That's not even remotely true and you (and everybody who reads this) know it. (Now for the Panty in a Bunch people) Is a Hybrid car, now better than a 70’s muscle car ? Well in the 70’s, gas at .25 cents, YEA. Today, NO. Should everybody go back that the 70’s car ? I don’t think so for everyday driving. All Cars, (including hybrids) are better today, and will be better tomorrow. And as we have learned to do some, recycling a circuit board, that also will get much better. Not sure what you're trying to say... but it's a simple fact that a hybrid car produces less emissions than a conventional one. OH: "...Just because it burns more efficiently doesn't make it cleaner. ..." Think someone needs to go back to school. [/quote] Why do you say that? I explained it perfectly. You refuse to acknowledge it. That's on you, not me. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by verslagen1 on 08/16/18 at 10:32:08 7C626D6C617C677A080 wrote:
1st your method of replying in a running argument leaves much to desire and I don't usually bother to read them entirely. CO2 cost for hybrid cars was presented with the initial presentation of the cars, and should be a well known fact. I recall it was compared with a conventional econobox car of the time. You're not getting something for free, that just naive. I'd call the pollution comparison questionable and would like to see the study on that one. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/16/18 at 11:38:24 647760617E7375777C23120 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by MnSpring on 08/16/18 at 13:16:08 "... I'd call the pollution comparison questionable and would like to see the study on that one..." Gee from the SAME PLACE T&T posted, only he forgot to, READ it all ! https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/does-hybrid-car-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits.htm A Quote from it: "In 2007, a report commissioned by an auto industry trade group insisted that when you factor in the waste generated during production, the notoriously gas-guzzling Hummer is actually greener than the Prius” "According to an in-depth study by the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory, hybrid cars do, in fact, require more energy to produce than conventional cars, emitting more greenhouse gases and burning more fossil fuels during the manufacturing process. The production of hybrid batteries, in particular, requires much more energy” Never mind that the words quoted by T&T, did NOT, consider production, and dismantling, which is ALL part of the total cost/pollution. This is interesting: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are-not-necessarily-clean/ "A recent study found that an electric car charged by utilities at night in the regional grid that stretches across Ohio, Delaware, Pennsylvania and Virginia creates more greenhouse gas pollution than if owners plugged in their vehicles at random times throughout the daytime, when the utility fuel mixes are more varied” (It seems that, someone on this forum believes, that by ‘plugging’ in a elect car. The Electric just, ‘Magically’ appears.) Here is one: https://axleaddict.com/cars/Prius "This may or may not come as some shock to you, but many scientists are saying that Toyota's best-selling hybrid, the Prius, is actually bad for the environment. Some are even asserting that it has a worse impact on our world than the widely-hated Hummer.” And their are a TON of others. Again for the Panty in a Bunch folk. Just because the first experiments in making a car, (like the Prius and kind), less polluting, were/are, Failures. It does not mean we should stop trying. In fact, I believe the first, all elect car, was made in the late 20’s So getting back to the question that started this all. Should not we, (the USA), burn the, 'cleanest' coal, not the dirtiest ? |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by verslagen1 on 08/16/18 at 13:29:23 597A4764667D7A73140 wrote:
Certainly coal fired plants are going to disappear over night. So burning cleaner fuel would mitigate there continued use. But that's not the intent, make them use the worst fuel so there's an immediate need. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/16/18 at 13:32:28 71526F4C4E55525B3C0 wrote:
We should not burn coal at all. Period. Full Stop. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by verslagen1 on 08/16/18 at 13:39:11 Quote:
says it all. even better... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption 13% total generated by renewable or nuclear |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/16/18 at 13:40:41 687B6C6D727F797B702F1E0 wrote:
Indeed it does. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by MnSpring on 08/16/18 at 15:32:40 7E606F6E637E65780A0 wrote:
Think ya missed the point T&T ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Let's see, your just fine with, immediately, reducing the US's elect power generation by almost 70% ? OH, Have at it, Where do you cut first ? I see I need to add: Would that be just like the ultra-Liberals, who believe immediately cutting 70% of emissions by U.S. electric power sector, will have no effect whatsoever. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by Eegore on 08/16/18 at 15:35:11 I'd like to know how if we completely stop coal-fired electricity tomorrow, how do we power things? There is nowhere near enough alternate fuel sources providing output today to compensate. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/16/18 at 15:36:39 1A390427253E3930570 wrote:
Think ya missed the point T&T I don't think so. But if I have, then vers should probably point it out, not you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Let's see, your just fine with, immediately, reducing the US's elect power generation by almost 70% ? Nope, not at all. I'm not as silly to think that you can just turn off our coal fired power plants. But you have to start working on and investing in alternatives now. OH, Have at it, Where do you cut first ? I see I need to add: Would that be just like the ultra-Liberals, who believe immediately cutting 70% of emissions by U.S. electric power sector, will have no effect whatsoever. I know of no liberal anywhere that ever said anything like that. Do you have any proof of that statement? If you don't, then why would you say that? [/quote] |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by MnSpring on 08/16/18 at 15:51:30 Does anybody know who said these words ? "... We should not burn coal at all. Period. Full Stop ..." |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/16/18 at 15:56:11 60437E5D5F44434A2D0 wrote:
I did. Do you mistake the word "should" for the word "must"? Should is a suggestion, not a demand. Once again mn, it's about context. You need to understand the context of the conversation and not take things out. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/16/18 at 18:11:27 need to understand the context of the conversation and not take things out. Wow.. You don't play by the rules you want. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/16/18 at 19:11:50 253A3C3B2621102010283A367D4F0 wrote:
Yes I do. Please show me where I've taken something out of context. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/16/18 at 21:36:01 Oh, ffs, you spent three days |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by MnSpring on 08/17/18 at 05:18:15 756A6C6B7671407040786A662D1F0 wrote:
Has SPUN, and taken everything he can, out of context, whenever he is cornered. Ask 6 people here. He will come back and say: 'prove it', as he always does. But their is no need to waste time, scouring through past posts. Everyone knows. It's one set of rules for a Troll, and another set, for everyone else. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/17/18 at 06:05:09 5D4244435E5968586850424E05370 wrote:
And you've spent the last 6 + months crying about what may or may not have happened. So? |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/17/18 at 06:13:47 5C7F426163787F76110 wrote:
Has SPUN, and taken everything he can, out of context, whenever he is cornered. Ask 6 people here. Show us proof mn. If it's that prevalent, then it would be easy to show us the proof. He will come back and say: 'prove it', as he always does. But their is no need to waste time, scouring through past posts. Everyone knows. Ah, very good. But no, there is a need. If you accuse me of something, then you'd better be able to prove it. Otherwise it's just you (and your 5 friends?) lying about it. It's one set of rules for a Troll, and another set, for everyone else. [/quote] Not at all. If I accuse someone of something, I post the proof. Those should be the rules for everyone, don't you think? |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by Eegore on 08/17/18 at 06:24:57 "Those should be the rules for everyone, don't you think?" No. Its an open forum, we should be able to accuse without needing "proof". Forum moderators shouldn't have to go research topics for accuracy to see if we are following forum rules. Accuse all day and in the end none of what we type on here really matters. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/17/18 at 07:56:19 133331392433560 wrote:
Prophetic statement Eegore. I do see your point - and have actually said basically the same thing. At the end of the day, all we have is our own conscience to deal with. I'm good with that. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by verslagen1 on 08/17/18 at 08:45:43 514F40414C514A57250 wrote:
Think ya missed the point T&T I don't think so. But if I have, then vers should probably point it out, not you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D [/quote] [/quote] You're supposed to be a big boy, tie your own shoes and wipe your nose. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/17/18 at 08:57:34 6B786F6E717C7A78732C1D0 wrote:
You should know the old saying vers, "when you assume you make an a$$ out of U and ME." Well then, what was the point of you listing the pollution generated from coal fired power plants? Are you saying a billion metric tons is huge? Are you saying it's no big deal? I'm sure you had a point. In case anyone needs clarification - my response was to agree that a billion tons is far too much pollution. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by verslagen1 on 08/17/18 at 10:24:27 Ya killin me smalls... 352631302F2224262D72430 wrote:
YOU made the assumption that electric vehicles don't pollute. AND every conservative has pointed out to you that they do by either extra manufacturing processes required or indirectly by consuming power generated by mostly coal... the dirtiest kind of coal too. But unless you've got solar panels on your roof to support your total power use... you're burning coal. Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/17/18 at 11:01:09 796A7D7C636E686A613E0F0 wrote:
YOU made the assumption that electric vehicles don't pollute. I said they produce far less emissions. In the case of fully electric vehicles, in their use, they produce no emissions. AND every conservative has pointed out to you that they do by either extra manufacturing processes required or indirectly by consuming power generated by mostly coal... the dirtiest kind of coal too. But that is negated by them not producing emissions in their life cycle. But unless you've got solar panels on your roof to support your total power use... you're burning coal. True - which is why we should stop using coal. Like I said - it's dirty. Quote:
So then, we're in agreement....? I guess the "big boy" comment was directed mn? |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by verslagen1 on 08/17/18 at 12:19:14 5C424D4C415C475A280 wrote:
Is this spin or are you full on ultra liberal delusional? Far less = 80% of gas in consumables plus 20% more manufacturing every 5 years. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/17/18 at 13:04:24 4A594E4F505D5B59520D3C0 wrote:
Is this spin or are you full on ultra liberal delusional? Far less = 80% of gas in consumables plus 20% more manufacturing every 5 years.[/quote] Not sure where you got those numbers - (to use your prose) are you full on conservative/big oil delusional? Suffice it to say vers, using a hybrid car, while utilizing a slightly "dirtier" manufacturing process will negate that "dirt" over its lifetime compared to a standard gas vehicle. If you can prove otherwise, please do. Until then, I'll defer to the experts: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2008/03/tank_vs_hybrid.html http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/hybrid-technology/hybrid-cars-cause-pollution.htm http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by LostArtist on 08/17/18 at 14:37:35 let's put some numbers on this, I've found this so far, is it reliable, idk, is it correct, again, idk, but it sounds logical and at least it's a start. https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-is-required-to-build-an-electric-car How much energy is required to build an electric car? "You will spend 13.5 GJ per year if you commute using an EV (electric vehicle) and will produce 2,750 kg of CO2. You will spend 21.3 GJ per year if you commute using an ICV (internal combustion vehicle) and will produce 5,300 kg of CO2." there's a link in this article to a fairly scientific paper called "Energy-Consumption and Carbon-Emission Analysis of Vehicle and Component Manufacturing" https://greet.es.anl.gov/files/vehicle_and_components_manufacturing oh, this downloads a pdf so if you aren't comfortable with that don't click it. I wish I could understand it, but it seems to break down to that yes, there is added pollution and CO2 and more energy required to produce an electric vehicle, but as said here before, over the life of the vehicle, this is negated by the clean running of the vehicle. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by MnSpring on 08/17/18 at 14:57:56 706374756A6761636837060 wrote:
You are talking to someone who want to buy Ocean Front lots in Iowa. If you sprinkle a bit of Fairy Dust, Just before you plug in your elect car. The Electricity the ‘Fairy Dust Sprinkler’ puts in it. Will, NOT, be produced by ‘dirty’ coal. The spin goes on, the spin goes on Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain La de da de de, la de da de da |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by MnSpring on 08/17/18 at 15:02:38 1B3824231625233E2423570 wrote:
Is that vehicle towing a really long trailer, with solar panels on it ? Or did the Electricity used to power it, just magically appear, with the correct application, of Fairy Dust ? |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/17/18 at 15:02:39 45665B787A61666F080 wrote:
You are talking to someone who want to buy Ocean Front lots in Iowa. Who? Me? When did I ever say that? Are you just lying for kicks? What do you hope to accomplish by that? If you sprinkle a bit of Fairy Dust, Just before you plug in your elect car. The Electricity the ‘Fairy Dust Sprinkler’ puts in it. Was, NOT, produced by ‘dirty’ coal. [/quote] There's no such thing as fairy dust mn. You should know that. Don't be silly. But to educate you, in IL at least, most of our power comes from nuclear. So there's that. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by verslagen1 on 08/17/18 at 15:31:23 Great info Lost, I might decipher it in a week or two. Quote:
They compare an ICV vs an EV They say to make an EV is 50% to mfg than a ICV, which let's assume that's the battery cost. (1250 co2 or 16 GJ) What they don't discuss is that you need to replace the battery after x years of use and they don't add that into the calculations. I guess they'll just launch the whole thing to Mars. Quote:
This is the cost of travel not including the battery, 1250co2. And I bet it does not include power transmission efficiencies. SO if I ride a m/c to work and my mpg twice that of the studied ICV... do my farts smell good too? and factor in that traffic means sh!t to me, my commute times are stable and I'm not grid locked and cussing. 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/17/18 at 16:54:02 756671706F6264666D32030 wrote:
This is the cost of travel not including the battery, 1250co2. And I bet it does not include power transmission efficiencies. SO if I ride a m/c to work and my mpg twice that of the studied ICV... do my farts smell good too? and factor in that traffic means sh!t to me, my commute times are stable and I'm not grid locked and cussing. 8-)[/quote] |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/18/18 at 17:38:14 For those who have been convinced that CO2 is a pollutant. I call that ridiculous. Increased CO2 causes plants to grow. Which balances the CO2. Buncha People running around in circles because someone told them to. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/18/18 at 18:13:53 213E383F22251424142C3E32794B0 wrote:
Yeah, it's just fine on Venus.... oh, wait.... A greenhouse gas is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect. The primary greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by Eegore on 08/18/18 at 18:23:23 CO2 concerns are about excess CO2 or more emission than what plants can effectively process. CO2 is fine but not when there's too much, just like everything else in the world. The idea that we can continue to reduce plant life and increase CO2 is the problem. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by WebsterMark on 08/19/18 at 05:06:19 If renewable energy / energy storage worked, it would have taken over the energy industry by now much in the manner cell phones destroyed the Ma-Bell land lines most of us grew up with and assumed would be around forever. Some technology will be developed that transforms energy use in the future but its not here yet and forcing changed with exaggerated temperature predictions isn't helping. The problem now is we've got an entire industry built around a false premise and breaking that spell (the point of this thread) is hard because the prosperity and careers of so many are dependent upon it. Imagine if you came up with a full proof method of nuclear fuel rod storage or disposal which would open the door for thousands of coal plants to be replaced with nuclear plants. Think about how hard it would be to basically eliminate two industries, coal production and the climate change industry? It's different than cell phones because they sold directly to consumers and were made overseas mostly. For energy, we have a couple middle men to go, governments and distribution companies. They are able to use regulations to insulate themselves. Remember how "landline" companies struggled with all the long distance plans as a way to avoid losing business to cell phones? It took a while but the public basically decided the fate of that industry and dragged AT&T into the cell phone world. The technology and life changing benefits were to great. Momentum was too strong. "Climate change" momentum is fake, it's driven by questionable science so it requires those governmental middlemen to maintain it. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/19/18 at 06:27:50 685A5D4C4B5A4D725E4D543F0 wrote:
Tell that to the wildfire, hurricane and drought victims. Look at the rate of change of global temperatures. It's not a hoax. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by Eegore on 08/19/18 at 09:11:46 "Potentially detrimental Man-influenced global climate differentiations" takes longer to say then Global Warming or Climate Change. I don't think Solar can fuel the entire planet even if we had dumped every spare dime into developing its technology since its inception. The propulsion needed to launch a rocket into the atmosphere, where we get the most valuable information about solar energy, would not have happened yet if we were exclusively solar. When a lot of these documentaries or analysts tell us where we could be if Big Oil wasn't in the way, they leave in the benefits of fossil fuels in the Industrial Revolution and the huge airline growth in the 60's. Look at the weight and tech in those years, there's no way we were going to power cargo planes by solar in 1965, even if we were offering infinite funding and research. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/19/18 at 11:31:29 0A2A28203D2A4F0 wrote:
Well we'll never know that because of the monopoly of oil from Rockefeller. In some cases you could say that solar, battery and turbine technology was set back by the "power" that oil had at the beginning. Think about it - this country went from its first powered flight to the moon in just 66 years... |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by WebsterMark on 08/20/18 at 05:08:47 6F4F4D45584F2A0 wrote:
I've heard that before somewhere. I've also read that if the earth's mass was only slightly greater, the rocket technology of the Mercury and Apollo programs wouldn't have been powerful enough to escape Earth so no attempt would have even been made. How much longer until technology came up with a solution is anyone's guess. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by WebsterMark on 08/20/18 at 05:16:32 All the energy this planet would/could ever need is from the Nothing killed the electric car other than the energy density of fossil fuels. There's no other easily accessible energy souce remotely approaching it. That's the reality. Is that the reality 50 years from now? Who knows. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/20/18 at 06:22:27 754740515647506F435049220 wrote:
We'll never know because of what big oil did to this country. Don't be afraid of watching the documentary. It's very educational. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by MnSpring on 08/20/18 at 08:15:49 2B353A3B362B302D5F0 wrote:
LOLOLOLOL, Watching that documentary. Is akin to watching a documentary, produced by Michael Francis Moore, about Firearms. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/20/18 at 08:16:59 11320F2C2E35323B5C0 wrote:
LOLOLOLOL, Watching that documentary. Is akin to watching a documentary, produced by Michael Francis Moore, about Firearms. [/quote] Have you watched it? If not, how can you pass judgement? |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by MnSpring on 08/20/18 at 08:35:05 3C222D2C213C273A480 wrote:
Do you understand the word “Watching” ? It means in most cases it was watched. When Was it watched, (yesterday, 6 years ago or 12 years ago.) does not matter. (Asking the question is a simple Troll 101 question, implying it was never watched, by saying, ‘…How Can You…”) Ray Charles could have seen the one sidedness of it. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/20/18 at 08:50:47 4C6F527173686F66010 wrote:
Do you understand the word “Watching” ? It means in most cases it was watched. When Was it watched, (yesterday, 6 years ago or 12 years ago.) does not matter. (Asking the question is a simple Troll 101 question, implying it was never watched, by saying, ‘…How Can You…”) Ray Charles could have seen the one sidedness of it. [/quote] You're wasting keystrokes mn - nothing more. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by Eegore on 08/20/18 at 14:08:19 Its an elaborate way of saying No. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by T And T Garage on 08/20/18 at 14:36:38 1535373F2235500 wrote:
Ahh - I see. Thanks Eegore! :) |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by MnSpring on 08/20/18 at 16:32:36 0C2C2E263B2C490 wrote:
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D And that would be, your, opinion. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by Eegore on 08/21/18 at 05:34:20 All we can have is opinion since you won't answer the question. |
|
Title: Re: Breaking the Climate Spell Post by WebsterMark on 08/21/18 at 06:09:51 Back to the topic at hand.... just read this. This latest data also proves that despite all of the criticism across the globe and in the American media, Trump was right to pull the U.S. out of the flawed Paris climate accord. Nearly every nation that signed on to Paris and has admonished America for not doing so, has already violated the agreement. According to Climate Action Network Europe, "All EU countries are failing to increase their climate action in line with the Paris Agreement goal." All but five countries have even reached 50 percent of their current targets. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |