Climate change discussion

[Trumpet]

You might want to take a look at all the Corporate and rich donor campaign contributions given to Biden. You are without a doubt one the dumbest fucks on this board.

Poopeye, no-one comes near you when it comes to stupidity; you are the undisputed master of stupidity.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

If- as they believe- CO2 is the life-or-death issue then why should they tolerate any time-wasting, self-serving and spurious opposition to survival ?

Do you really believe that the condemned man should listen to the hangman's reasons for pulling the lever ?

That is the religious component. Do you, as say AOC and her cohorts, believe that we're doomed in about 9 years because of Gorebal Warming? That is what the crazies on the Left are telling us.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/n...eo-AOC-believes-world-end-climate-change.html

That doesn't mean just because a Jehovah's Witness comes to my door I'm supposed to believe them. It amounts to the same thing.

 

[moon]

first you need tp post proof positive that global warming exists today, then you must prove that man directly caused it. When you do those two things we can talk, until then you are wasting everyone's time.

i.

OK- stick your hand on your power supply.


Haw, haw..............................haw.


As for talking with you......................what the fuck for ?

 

[moon]

That is the religious component. Do you, as say AOC and her cohorts, believe that we're doomed in about 9 years because of Gorebal Warming? That is what the crazies on the Left are telling us.

I say, as any sane person does- err on the side of caution.

 

[Matt Dillon]

It can be distilled down to this: our current habits and energy choices are not sustainable.

It's not really a big mystery. We're only about 200 years into the industrial revolution, and we've already lost significant habitat. We're in the middle of a mass extinction. The oceanic food supply is closer to the brink than most know.

Imagine another 200 years, without any changes?

I wish people would throw the AGW argument out the window. It's too polarizing, and ultimately, it doesn't even matter. We're making our planet unlivable.

It's the biggest issue of our day, but I have no optimism on it. Many of us can't even be bothered to wear a mask to protect our fellow citizens. We'll never make the sacrifices or changes that need to be made for sustainable living.

Fishing should be done responsibly. China goes around with super fishing vessels and decimates fish stocks wherever they can get away with it.

It's like warfare against nature's food supply and the world's fishermen. Not long ago they caught one off of Argentina.

I refuse to buy any Chinese-caught fish because of their methods.
(also the quality is poor)
I live in an area that is bountiful for fish and can get my own if need be.

Chinese ships can't get up in here..lol!

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I say, as any sane person does- err on the side of caution.

Then the solution is nuclear backed by natural gas with hydrogen or ammonia as a portable fuel. That's the cautious solution because it is available, and can be shown to work. The irrational and dangerous one is going to solar, wind, and batteries.

 

[katzgar]

I want the resident libs to respond to this with factual data if you have any

1. the climate of planet earth has been changing for hundreds of millions of years, ice cores and fossils prove that
2. man has never had anything to do with it
3. the sun and earth's tilt of its axis control our climate, not use of fossil fuels
4. solar and wind and hydro make up around 5% of our energy use, they will never be capable of producing 100%
5. The USA has drastically reduced pollution in the last 30 years
6. It takes massive amounts of fossil fuel to produce solar panels and windmills. they are made of plastics and plexiglass which are made from oil
7. electric cars require recharging after 200 miles or so. you will never be able to drive across the country in an electric car or truck
8. the electricity to recharge is produced mostly by fossil fuels
9. which of you will volunteer for the first night flight in a solar powered airplane?
10. If your goal is to stop pollution, why isn't that enough? why do you need an unproved link between pollution and climate?
11. everyone on earth supports reducing pollution, everyone
12. be honest, this is not about pollution or climate, its about finding a way to control everyone's actions and lives
13. Al Gore is a liar and hypocrite

The only factual data I have is that you're a moron

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The only factual data I have is that you're a moron

Global Warming saves lives and increases profits: https://www.realclearmarkets.com/ar...d_makes_the_world_more_prosperous_103771.html
In 2015, the prestigious medical journal The Lancet reported that worldwide, cold kills over 17 times more people than heat. A group of 22 scientists examined over 74 million deaths in the United States, China, Brazil, and ten other countries in 1985-2012. They found that cold caused 7.29 percent of these deaths, while heat caused only 0.42 percent. And of these temperature-related deaths, “moderately hot and cold temperatures” caused 88.85 percent of the deaths, while “extreme” temperatures caused only 11.15 percent.

A warmer earth thus saves numerous lives worldwide. Saving lives outweighs any harm that global warming might cause.

Saving lives, moreover, has economic as well as humanitarian benefits. Saving lives increases population growth. Population growth is a critical driver in raising incomes, pulling people out of poverty, and increasing prosperity worldwide.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Then the solution is nuclear backed by natural gas with hydrogen or ammonia as a portable fuel. That's the cautious solution because it is available, and can be shown to work. The irrational and dangerous one is going to solar, wind, and batteries.

Spaceships run on solar. The wind and tides are free. The whole "the man who builds a better mousetrap will see the world will make a beaten path to his door" idea.

How many of our brothers in Idaho would like to be 100% off the grid? Can't do that with nukes or natural gas. How much money would be saved by trucks, trains and ships which do not require refueling? Then, of course, there's the Mars and Lunar colony thing.

 

[cancel2 2022]

The Dems would love to do a lot about global warming. The reds have blocked it as hard as they can since they work for corporations and the wealthy. It getting worse on not a talking point but scientific fact.

Even Michael Moore has worked out that billionaires like Tom Steyer are making squillions out of renewables unreliables.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Then the solution is nuclear backed by natural gas with hydrogen or ammonia as a portable fuel. That's the cautious solution because it is available, and can be shown to work. The irrational and dangerous one is going to solar, wind, and batteries.

McMoonshi'ite is scientifically illiterate and thus incapable of understanding anything.

 

[cancel2 2022]

The Dems would love to do a lot about global warming. The reds have blocked it as hard as they can since they work for corporations and the wealthy. It getting worse on not a talking point but scientific fact.

The Germans have done a lot and look what's happened! The Energiewende has been a disaster. What you're advocating would do the same for the US as well. You're just a clichebot, open your eyes for once in your life!!

In 2000, Germany launched a deliberately targeted program to decarbonize its primary energy supply, a plan more ambitious than anything seen anywhere else. The policy, called the Energiewende, is rooted in Germany’s naturalistic and romantic tradition, reflected in the rise of the Green Party and, more recently, in public opposition to nuclear electricity generation. These attitudes are not shared by the country’s two large neighbors: France built the world’s leading nuclear industrial complex with hardly any opposition, and Poland is content burning its coal.

The policy worked through the government subsidization of renewable electricity generated with photovoltaic cells and wind turbines and by burning fuels produced by the fermentation of crops and agricultural waste. It was accelerated in 2011 when Japan’s nuclear disaster in Fukushima led the German government to order that all its nuclear power plants be shut down by 2022.

During the past two decades, the Energiewende has been praised as an innovative miracle that will inexorably lead to a completely green Germany and criticized as an expensive, poorly coordinated overreach. I will merely present the facts.

The initiative has been expensive, and it has made a major difference. In 2000, 6.6 percent of Germany’s electricity came from renewable sources; in 2019, the share reached 41.1 percent. In 2000, Germany had an installed capacity of 121 gigawatts and it generated 577 terawatt-hours, which is 54 percent as much as it theoretically could have done (that is, 54 percent was its capacity factor). In 2019, the country produced just 5 percent more (607 TWh), but its installed capacity was 80 percent higher (218.1 GW) because it now had two generating systems [emphasis added].

The new system, using intermittent power from wind and solar, accounted for 110 GW, nearly 50 percent of all installed capacity in 2019, but operated with a capacity factor of just 20 percent. (That included a mere 10 percent for solar, which is hardly surprising, given that large parts of the country are as cloudy as Seattle.) The old system stood alongside it, almost intact, retaining nearly 85 percent of net generating capacity in 2019. Germany needs to keep the old system in order to meet demand on cloudy and calm days and to produce nearly half of total demand. In consequence, the capacity factor of this sector is also low.

It costs Germany a great deal to maintain such an excess of installed power. The average cost of electricity for German households has doubled since 2000. By 2019, households had to pay 34 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to 22 cents per kilowatt-hour in France and 13 cents in the United States.

https://www.americanexperiment.org/2020/12/germanys-energy-disaster-20-years-later/

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Spaceships run on solar. The wind and tides are free. The whole "the man who builds a better mousetrap will see the world will make a beaten path to his door" idea.

Spaceships don't have to do it through a magnetic field and thick atmosphere... Solar and wind are limited by physics and chemistry. They fail for those reasons when used on Earth.

How many of our brothers in Idaho would like to be 100% off the grid? Can't do that with nukes or natural gas. How much money would be saved by trucks, trains and ships which do not require refueling? Then, of course, there's the Mars and Lunar colony thing.

Off the grid? Depends on how much power you propose to have and whether you want it 24/7 or not. Although I can't legally do it, I could put a small reactor in my swimming pool and power the neighborhood. In Idaho, the best choice would be micro-hydro on several acres of land with a perennial stream going through it--assuming the EPA doesn't come and deny you using a weir and the stream to generate power like they've done before and would likely do if the Waters of the US legislation goes into full effect--another idiot thing Biden might well do.

Can't power vehicles with solar either unless you want something totally impractical.

Tidal energy is even more impractical. Not only does it require absolutely massive systems to generate power, they are in the worst combination of conditions: Saltwater pounded by waves.

Mars has next to no atmosphere either. But it is further away from the sun so solar is less efficient there. On Earth the average watt density of sunlight is 1.4 kw / m^2 versus 590 watts / m^2 or only 42% on Mars what we get on Earth.

Solar and wind are losers. Follow the science. You Lefties keep saying that...

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Even Michael Moore has worked out that billionaires like Tom Steyer are making squillions out of renewables unreliables.

Steyer is the worst kind of scam artist. He's backing the companies that make loans for home solar for the biggest companies installing it like Solar City. They combination comes and lies to you about the efficiency of their systems, its durability, etc., then gets a big loan for you to buy solar for your home.
Even worse is when his company leases it to you. Then you're stuck with the system, can't touch it even though its on your roof, and you get to pay for the privilege of being ass raped by a billionaire.
Oh, you might note Steyer is also a major hypocrite. Another of his companies (Farallon Capital) is the major coal supplier out of Australia to China...

 

[Tinker]

The Dems would love to do a lot about global warming. The reds have blocked it as hard as they can since they work for corporations and the wealthy. It getting worse on not a talking point but scientific fact.

Sorry but they are proposing nothing to prepare for it's eventuality because they believe they can stop it.

That is how dumb they are.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Steyer is the worst kind of scam artist. He's backing the companies that make loans for home solar for the biggest companies installing it like Solar City. They combination comes and lies to you about the efficiency of their systems, its durability, etc., then gets a big loan for you to buy solar for your home.
Even worse is when his company leases it to you. Then you're stuck with the system, can't touch it even though its on your roof, and you get to pay for the privilege of being ass raped by a billionaire.
Oh, you might note Steyer is also a major hypocrite. Another of his companies (Farallon Capital) is the major coal supplier out of Australia to China...

Demotwats like Nutberg don't know that he made his fortune out of coal!

 

[cancel2 2022]

Spaceships don't have to do it through a magnetic field and thick atmosphere... Solar and wind are limited by physics and chemistry. They fail for those reasons when used on Earth.



Off the grid? Depends on how much power you propose to have and whether you want it 24/7 or not. Although I can't legally do it, I could put a small reactor in my swimming pool and power the neighborhood. In Idaho, the best choice would be micro-hydro on several acres of land with a perennial stream going through it--assuming the EPA doesn't come and deny you using a weir and the stream to generate power like they've done before and would likely do if the Waters of the US legislation goes into full effect--another idiot thing Biden might well do.

Can't power vehicles with solar either unless you want something totally impractical.

Tidal energy is even more impractical. Not only does it require absolutely massive systems to generate power, they are in the worst combination of conditions: Saltwater pounded by waves.

Mars has next to no atmosphere either. But it is further away from the sun so solar is less efficient there. On Earth the average watt density of sunlight is 1.4 kw / m^2 versus 590 watts / m^2 or only 42% on Mars what we get on Earth.

Solar and wind are losers. Follow the science. You Lefties keep saying that...

There really aren't that many places around the world where tidal is even justifiable. I can only think of the Pentland Firth, Strangford Lough and the Bristol Channel.

 

[moon]

Then the solution is nuclear backed by natural gas with hydrogen or ammonia as a portable fuel. That's the cautious solution because it is available, and can be shown to work. The irrational and dangerous one is going to solar, wind, and batteries.

Renewables are dangerous ?

Haw, haw......................................haw.

Now- battery technology is the weakness- so let's crack on and solve that. Meanwhile, there are many aspects of renewables to explore without resorting to elderly, failed and extremely dangerous fossils and nuclear.

 

[moon]

McMoonshi'ite is scientifically illiterate and thus incapable of understanding anything.

Vera, you clearly have no concept of how isolated you are nor how stupid your flailings appear. Your ridiculous and repetitive insults serve merely to brand you as a twat.


Haw, haw...........................................haw.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Renewables are dangerous ?

Haw, haw......................................haw.

Now- battery technology is the weakness- so let's crack on and solve that. Meanwhile, there are many aspects of renewables to explore without resorting to elderly, failed and extremely dangerous fossils and nuclear.

Go to Baotou, Inner Mongolia and see the huge toxic radioactive lakes caused by rare earth production. Or the inhumane conditions in the Congo for cobalt mining. You claim to care about Palestine yet don't give a fuck about Chinese or Congolese children.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cobalt...cratic-republic-congo-cbs-news-investigation/