Climate Change is a Hoax

[tortugabob]

Eighty-one pages of foolish machinations and still no consensus. Have no fear deniers.  We will win in the end.  You know this because the "scientific"  and sky-is-falling factions have become so arrogant and dismissive that we, the hoi polloi, will never trust them.  And why should we?  These are the people that gave us nuclear weapons, biological pathogens and chemicals that instead of making life better destroy everything they touch.  They give us robots to take our jobs and IA to spy on us inside our very homes. The Una-Bomber, Ted Kaczynski, in his treatise Industrial Society and Its Future had it right.

"Science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporate executives who provide the funds for research."

These scientists have sold their souls to political factions who know their days are numbered. Politicians who see Orwellian control of the masses as the only way to remain in power.  They are counting on this new religion.  And many of the young are believing and preaching this false gospel.  Some true believers will hold to the faith.  More, the majority, will reject it when they realize what creature comforts, yea even the food,  they must give up to meet the expectations of the so-called climate experts. 

I have to laugh when I hear people like Marsman spout off about converting an industrialized nation to wind power in ten years.  Sheer delusion has taken hold of the man.  May he see the truth before the starving majority see him as a meal.

Doug1of29 speaks of writing planks for the Oklahoma Democratic Party concerning global warming.  Doug why not spell them out here.  I would like to read them.  Did you water them down to Earth Day platitudes as I advised?  Did they accept them?  I doubt it.  All your math is for naught. What would you expect when our government has a policy of dumbing down the plantation workers. How ironic that our rulers want worker bees, not thinkers. Your work, whether right or wrong, means nothing to us.

The Hindus are correct.  We are living in the fourth Age, the Kali Yuga, the dark time of man when evil rules.  Even if global warming is upon us we are distracted by materialistic baubles.  Scientists will not save us or the planet. The Earth must be purged before a new Age can come forth.  

[Essan]

7 minutes ago, tortugabob said:

Eighty-one pages of foolish machinations and still no consensus.

Well, yes, In the same way there is no consensus on the Earth  being round because there is always someone who will argue it is flat  

 

[Doc Socks Junior]

14 hours ago, tmcom said:

True, but even with thermal protection, solar panels silica will break and be less effective in snow prown areas, or break at -40 if no protection is available.

The previous mars rovers had a special thermal blanket, underneath the panels that almost protected them from breaking, (neither were heated, by the battery). But if you look at Opportunitys panels before it died, you will find that some are broken.

But the point is, thermal protecting a few acres of these things would probably be impractical.

But greenies in Germany are finding even with solar on the roof and a Tesla battery in their garage that the battery goes dead since the panels typically generate 10% of their potential capacity.

Germany routinely sees -40 temperatures? Probably not.

Yes if panels get covered no doubt they're less efficient.  Or if the sun is more veiled.  But the problem isn't the temperatures that they're operating in.

6.6 percent of total generated electricity in Germany is pretty good, I'd say.  I can't speak for the individual German citizen with solar panels on their roof.

14 hours ago, tmcom said:

I know that they are making progress with Fission, but it is still some way off, it will probably go online after 2100.

I'm presuming you mean fusion. Current nuclear power is fission based. I think we are both in agreement that it'd be beneficial to add more nuclear power to the mix.

14 hours ago, tmcom said:

All other options pfft, it only makes this whole thing all the more funnier.

More funny or funnier - either way works.  What's the funny part of the thing?  That inertia has locked the world into relying on MF combustion of coal?  I'd rather innovate than rely on primitive methodologies.

Geothermal is pretty nice as a base power source. The main problem is that actual electricity generation is tough with it, but as for heating it's very good.

[GlitterRose]

 

[tmcom]

4 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Germany routinely sees -40 temperatures? Probably not.

Yes if panels get covered no doubt they're less efficient.  Or if the sun is more veiled.  But the problem isn't the temperatures that they're operating in.

6.6 percent of total generated electricity in Germany is pretty good, I'd say.  I can't speak for the individual German citizen with solar panels on their roof.

No, probably not Germany but Siberia has seen their solar panels get destroyed by snow and extreme temperatures, even with protection.

4 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

I'm presuming you mean fusion. Current nuclear power is fission based. I think we are both in agreement that it'd be beneficial to add more nuclear power to the mix.

More funny or funnier - either way works.  What's the funny part of the thing?  That inertia has locked the world into relying on MF combustion of coal?  I'd rather innovate than rely on primitive methodologies.

Geothermal is pretty nice as a base power source. The main problem is that actual electricity generation is tough with it, but as for heating it's very good.

Ok, my mistake the one that uses sea water and lazers.

Funny in the context that if something that can replace coal and not emit anything is developed then it will most likely be buried since it threatens oil and jobs and the stock market, etc.

[tmcom]

6 hours ago, tortugabob said:

Eighty-one pages of foolish machinations and still no consensus. Have no fear deniers.  We will win in the end.  You know this because the "scientific"  and sky-is-falling factions have become so arrogant and dismissive that we, the hoi polloi, will never trust them.  And why should we?  These are the people that gave us nuclear weapons, biological pathogens and chemicals that instead of making life better destroy everything they touch.  They give us robots to take our jobs and IA to spy on us inside our very homes. The Una-Bomber, Ted Kaczynski, in his treatise Industrial Society and Its Future had it right.

"Science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporate executives who provide the funds for research."

These scientists have sold their souls to political factions who know their days are numbered. Politicians who see Orwellian control of the masses as the only way to remain in power.  They are counting on this new religion.  And many of the young are believing and preaching this false gospel.  Some true believers will hold to the faith.  More, the majority, will reject it when they realize what creature comforts, yea even the food,  they must give up to meet the expectations of the so-called climate experts. 

I have to laugh when I hear people like Marsman spout off about converting an industrialized nation to wind power in ten years.  Sheer delusion has taken hold of the man.  May he see the truth before the starving majority see him as a meal.

Doug1of29 speaks of writing planks for the Oklahoma Democratic Party concerning global warming.  Doug why not spell them out here.  I would like to read them.  Did you water them down to Earth Day platitudes as I advised?  Did they accept them?  I doubt it.  All your math is for naught. What would you expect when our government has a policy of dumbing down the plantation workers. How ironic that our rulers want worker bees, not thinkers. Your work, whether right or wrong, means nothing to us.

The Hindus are correct.  We are living in the fourth Age, the Kali Yuga, the dark time of man when evil rules.  Even if global warming is upon us we are distracted by materialistic baubles.  Scientists will not save us or the planet. The Earth must be purged before a new Age can come forth.  

I agree wind power is pretty funny, so one day modern society and the next, 1800's.

And l recently read about the 10 markers that a group or body is a cult, the Climate Change movement ticks all ten.

One line in particular rings true, not just for this subject but others, where people that act like they are open, but really are not, start to spout spaghetti science to dismiss it.

Or if it is a hot day, someone who wants to prove that the climate change apocalypse is real, will open it and say, "see, it is real" but if a skeptic does the same on a freezing cold day, then the believers say "weather and climate are too separate things".

In other words they are always right, or it doesn't matter how good the evidence is, they are still right,...but l tend to use another word,...up being the last.

Agreed. science that could revolutionize our world and end poverty, etc is buried, healthcare is profit driven and all cheap options are buried, or never tested, power generation, buried and pretty much anything else that does not fit with our present world view is buried and suppressed.

And what makes it more ironic is a fair percentage of the worlds population, either through brainwashing or denial just refuse to accept that any conspiracy theory's on a global scale actually exist.

After all conspiracy means nutters, unless there is solid evidence then it is true, and the nutters are not the ones that believe that it is happening.

Unfortunately nutters like Gates, that are artificially considering reducing our world temp's are putting a cap on evil, or they look at a dodgy chart, eventhough world temp's overall are going down, and speed that up, thinking that they are doing the opposite.

I expect that the US will go through some very harsh winters, until someone with a ...ing brain, steps in and puts an end to this madness.

This madness or global stupidity will end soon enough, but in the meantime it is a three ringed circus, with the herds of cattle in front and the rest stuck in the back shaking their heads in disbelief.

So yeah it is a cult, and anything to do with heat or flames is caused by climate change, "so when l burn my chicken in the oven, that is climate change" , lol.

[marsman]

6 hours ago, tortugabob said:

I have to laugh when I hear people like Marsman spout off about converting an industrialized nation to wind power in ten years.  Sheer delusion has taken hold of the man.  May he see the truth before the starving majority see him as a meal.

 

 

but i never said that.....when i was kid in the 60s....white Christmas's were expected....nowadays a white Xmas in the UK is a very rare treat.....so what happened?......the climate changed of course....and thousands of scientists all around the world agree.....there are mass protests in london right now to address climate change

but.....you....an untrained ignorant forum fool.....think you know better?  

[marsman]

7 hours ago, tortugabob said:

I have to laugh when I hear people like Marsman spout off about converting an industrialized nation to wind power in ten years.  Sheer delusion has taken hold of the man.  May he see the truth before the starving majority see him as a meal.

 

 

I have to laugh at the morons who do no research yet offer their OPINIONS as being true.......read the following.....all of it

 

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

Greenhouse gases affect Earth’s energy balance and climate
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/

 

9 ways we know humans triggered climate change

Most Americans recognize climate change, but some are still unsure about its causes.

Tens of thousands of scientists in more than a hundred nations have amassed an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to a clear conclusion: Humans are the main cause.
https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change

 

Multiple lines of evidence show climate change is happening

There is lots of evidence that tells us the average temperatures of the world's atmosphere and oceans have increased over the past 150 years.
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/why-climate-change-matters/evidence-climate-change

 

The Most Powerful Evidence Climate Scientists Have of Global Warming
The oceans hold the story of a planet warming as fossil fuels are burned. Here is what scientists have discovered, in four charts.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03102017/infographic-ocean-heat-powerful-climate-change-evidence-global-warming

 

[marsman]

7 Species Hit Hard by Climate Change—Including One That's Already Extinct
Coral, polar bears, and frogs are among the species hit hardest.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140331-global-warming-climate-change-ipcc-animals-science-environment/

 

 

First mammal species recognized as extinct due to climate change

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/first-mammal-extinct-climate-change-bramble-cay-melomys/

 

 

World biodiversity has declined alarmingly in half a century: more than 25,000 species, almost a third of those known, are in danger of disappearing. Climate change will be responsible for 8% of these.

https://www.iberdrola.com/top-stories/environment/climate-change-endangered-species

 

Half of plant and animal species at risk from climate change in world’s most important natural places
https://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/half-of-plant-and-animal-species-at-risk-from-climate-change-in-world-s-most-important-natural-places

 

yet the morons keep denying it

 

 

[lost_shaman]

9 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

You're confused on the very basics. And since you can't grasp heat flow, you're truly useless to discuss this with.

You are talking about yourself! You do not understand how photons heat matter. Low energy photons DO NOT transfer heat to hot objects. It does NOT matter how many times you claim that this is NOT true because it is certainly true! Wavelengths matter emit are determined by temperature via Wien's displacement law and Energy of the wavelength via  the Planck–Einstein equation E = hv or also 

.E=hν=hc/λ.

where h is Planck's constant, ν is the frequency, c is the speed of light, and λ is the wavelength. This is why IR radiation is associated with heat because that is the part of the spectrum where enrgy is just right to warm matter while longer wavelengths don't have enough energy and shorter wavelength EM radiation has too much energy.

[marsman]

6 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

You are talking about yourself! You do not understand how photons heat matter. Low energy photons DO NOT transfer heat to hot objects. It does NOT matter how many times you claim that this is NOT true because it is certainly true! Wavelengths matter emit are determined by temperature via Wien's displacement law and Energy of the wavelength via  the Planck–Einstein equation E = hv or also 

.E=hν=hc/λ.

where h is Planck's constant, ν is the frequency, c is the speed of light, and λ is the wavelength. This is why IR radiation is associated with heat because that is the part of the spectrum where enrgy is just right to warm matter while longer wavelengths don't have enough energy and shorter wavelength EM radiation has too much energy.

 

focus on the simple facts shaman.....he has had his know it all bubble popped by credible facts/links re climate change.....he is just using diversion tactics now to try and regain some imagined credibility......if he was worth bothering with....he would admit climate change is a fact

[lost_shaman]

8 minutes ago, marsman said:

 

focus on the simple facts shaman.....he has had his know it all bubble popped by credible facts/links re climate change.....he is just using diversion tactics now to try and regain some imagined credibility......if he was worth bothering with....he would admit climate change is a fact

That's a joke. What "diversion tactics" specifically do you believe I'm using? Also using proper English would help. Thanks. 

Edited April 21, 2019 by lost_shaman

[marsman]

1 minute ago, lost_shaman said:

That's a joke. What "diversion tactics" specifically do you believe I'm using? Also using proper English would help. Thanks. 

 

re-read it.....i said...... .he is just using diversion tactics now

he.....isnt YOU.......is it?

 

[lost_shaman]

1 minute ago, marsman said:

 

re-read it.....i said...... .he is just using diversion tactics now

he.....isnt YOU.......is it?

 

You addressed me, who then are you talking about? Also If I was debating them then they are Climate Change 'believers'.

[marsman]

4 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

You addressed me, who then are you talking about? Also If I was debating them then they are Climate Change 'believers'.

 

good lord.....i wrote in comprehend-able english about Doc Socks......ie......He....

if i wrote about you....id say You.....not he

 

[lost_shaman]

1 minute ago, marsman said:

 

good lord.....i wrote in comprehend-able english about Doc Socks......ie......He....

if i wrote about you....id say You.....not he

 

Ok. Sorry. I think you are misusing the ellipsis (...) which doesn't end a sentence. Guess that is throwing me off. 

[lost_shaman]

3 hours ago, marsman said:

 

but i never said that.....when i was kid in the 60s....white Christmas's were expected....nowadays a white Xmas in the UK is a very rare treat.....so what happened?......the climate changed of course....and thousands of scientists all around the world agree.....there are mass protests in london right now to address climate change

but.....you....an untrained ignorant forum fool.....think you know better?  

This post also makes me think you are not saying what you assert that you are saying. You "ask what happened"? 

Well Solar activity ramped way up and the AMO turned positive. The latter seems to be on the verge of turning negative if it has not already happened while the former is already in a low state after several high activity solar cycles in a row. 

Edited April 21, 2019 by lost_shaman

[tmcom]

3 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

This post also makes me think you are not saying what you assert that you are saying. You "ask what happened"?

I think that he is saying my Cult is right, and he also likes using the word moron, (l never argue with an expert).

And likes using sources that prove beyond a doubt that the end is nigh, ok, here are a few sources in the 70's that also proved beyond a doubt certain things will happen that didn't happen.

Quote

In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

I guess that makes it a solid cockup?

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/

One of many predictions by the most prominent sources back then, that were 100% wrong!

I read today that Justin Beiber has joined the ranks of movie stars with no idea, or zero experience in earths climate, starring in an animated movie, just so they can scare 3 year olds, that the world will end.

And someone in that article, also said that climate change has become insane, (can't argue with him on that one).

You will have to forgive the actions and statements of some here, after all with them reclying, and giving to Green-piece, the end is still nigh, and their beloved Apple Mac's will start melting before their very eyes, (a horror no one should go through).

This would be a lot funnier if this wasn't destroying our grid, raising costs and hurting pensions and the poor, but watching people run about waving their hands for no reason, still carries a laugh.

 

[marsman]

2 hours ago, tmcom said:

Quote

I In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution

 

bet you feel silly now

China......

Hu Li's heart sank when she realised that she could gauge how close she was to home by the colour of the air. Driving 140 kilometres from Tianjin City to Beijing last week, she held her breath as the chalky-white horizon became a charcoal grey haze. The 39-year-old businesswoman has lived in Beijing for a decade, and this past month, she said, brought the worst air pollution she has ever seen. It gave her husband a hacking cough and left her seven-year-old daughter housebound.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/16/chinese-struggle-through-airpocalypse-smog

 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/03/24/transfer-to-beijing-why-expats-are-saying-no-thanks.html

 

Edited April 21, 2019 by marsman

[tmcom]

1 hour ago, marsman said:

bet you feel silly now

China......

Hu Li's heart sank when she realised that she could gauge how close she was to home by the colour of the air. Driving 140 kilometres from Tianjin City to Beijing last week, she held her breath as the chalky-white horizon became a charcoal grey haze. The 39-year-old businesswoman has lived in Beijing for a decade, and this past month, she said, brought the worst air pollution she has ever seen. It gave her husband a hacking cough and left her seven-year-old daughter housebound.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/16/chinese-struggle-through-airpocalypse-smog

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/03/24/transfer-to-beijing-why-expats-are-saying-no-thanks.html

Urban dwellers globally, (they did not specify a country) no one in my country looks like that, etc.

So no, l don't feel silly at all.

And l guess we can forget about sunlight being reduced by half over 30 years ago, (solid evidence) apart from Bill Gates experiment that, if done globally, will do nothing and make things worse.

I suggest that you watch all of the video's l have recently posted, and go and have a long think about it, and do some research, ICECAP is an excellent site to get good information about this subject,

I know that you call everyone who doesn't wake up every morning fearful that the world will end in 13 years time, a moron, but l in live in AU and can see first hand the idiots in my country destroying coal fired power plants, causing unnecessary deaths and suffering due to excessive electricity price hikes, and for what???

Votes mainly, our countrys leaders are primary run by brainwashed school children that when they reach 18 will vote in anything that claims to fix it.

If Australia went back to the stone ages, no electricity, we would reduce CO2 or global warming by 1-3%, or virtually useless, yet we keep closing down coal plants for no reason, pushing solar/wind eventhough it is more expensive, and intermittent, or not practical, and p****ing away billions on using the ocean to make power, and everytime it ends up as scrap, or in other words, a quickly created corporation, scraping as much venture or iPO capital as they can, before a storm hits.

Edited April 21, 2019 by tmcom

[Doug1029]

On 4/19/2019 at 8:58 PM, tmcom said:

Wind and solar are markedly more expensive than a coal fired power plant that has paid for itself!

True that an already-paid for coal plant is cheaper to run and maintain than a wind farm that hasn't yet been built.  That's why you should keep the coal plants in production until they wear out.  THEN replace them with wind farms.  That's the cheapest solution.

I did a little digging yesterday.  Australia's problem seems to be an almost non-existent grid.  You can't move power across the country on lines that don't exist.  You need that grid to move electricity from places where the wind is blowing to places where it isn't.  Upgrading your power-generation system to the 21st century is going to cost money and that is something that needs to be considered, too.  The US can easily afford it.  I don't know about Australia.

About those wave-generators:  each one becomes a floating reef with lots of little fish seeking shelter.  Little fish attract bigger fish to eat them and those attract seals and great white sharks to eat them.  Great white sharks apparently can't tell maintenance divers from seals, so....   There is a shortage of maintenance divers.  So needed maintenance isn't getting done.  Along comes a storm and sinks the system.  So either you find another way, or you shark-proof your system (Like maybe towing it into a protected cage for maintenance.).

On 4/19/2019 at 8:58 PM, tmcom said:

Give it a few years, lol, apart from a Fission reactor, that is 30 years away or never, coal and nuclear are the only viable options.

You may not find nuclear so attractive.  It is more expensive than any other method.  Fast breeders MIGHT be a good idea, BUT:  Uncle Sam is the main supplier of reprocessed uranium fuel.  You'll need to buy that.

I'll believe fission when I see it.  Seems to be a lot of problems getting it to work.

 

About France:  the problem isn't so much a "green" tax (even though they found the wrong solution and implemented it in a clumsy and ham-handed manner), as it is the rich vs. poor problem.  The wealthy are always happy to foist off costs of any public project onto those least able to afford it.  They pat themselves on the back and feel righteous and condemn the poor for being poor.  France has created tax after tax that has fallen disproportionately on the poor.  The poor have finally had enough.

No green energy proposal is going to work if it doesn't help people.  If your problem is how to afford groceries, you aren't too concerned about saving the world.  A starving man will kill the last spotted owl to feed his family one more day; hence, the poaching problem with wildlife in poorer countries.

For that reason, the concerns of lower-income people have to be addressed.  AOC is right.  The Green New Deal MUST include the poor.

Doug

[Doug1029]

20 hours ago, tortugabob said:

Doug1of29 speaks of writing planks for the Oklahoma Democratic Party concerning global warming.  Doug why not spell them out here.  I would like to read them.  Did you water them down to Earth Day platitudes as I advised?  Did they accept them?  I doubt it.  All your math is for naught. What would you expect when our government has a policy of dumbing down the plantation workers. How ironic that our rulers want worker bees, not thinkers. Your work, whether right or wrong, means nothing to us.

They got it hopelessly mangled.

I am going to put together a short program on why cap-and-trade doesn't work and why we should introduce the carbon fee system (A variant has already been introduced - by two Republican Senators, yet!) and present it to my local chapter. We would do better to tweak that version than try it do something different for political reasons.

I got in on this too late to have much effect on this year's platform.  I'll try to get something going for 2022.

Doug

P.S>:  they didn't even understand that "a system of carbon exchanges" IS cap-and-trade.

Doug

Edited April 21, 2019 by Doug1029

[tmcom]

30 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

True that an already-paid for coal plant is cheaper to run and maintain than a wind farm that hasn't yet been built.  That's why you should keep the coal plants in production until they wear out.  THEN replace them with wind farms.  That's the cheapest solution.

I did a little digging yesterday.  Australia's problem seems to be an almost non-existent grid.  You can't move power across the country on lines that don't exist.  You need that grid to move electricity from places where the wind is blowing to places where it isn't.  Upgrading your power-generation system to the 21st century is going to cost money and that is something that needs to be considered, too.  The US can easily afford it.  I don't know about Australia.

Replace them with wind farms, ok, l need to educate you on AUstralia. We have several instances a year when up to three states at a time have little to no wind. So hypothetically if our entire country is 85% wind, (we use 85% now for coal) then it is inevitable that South Australia and Victoria will have little to no wind for 3 days to a week.

Perth is too far away to connect to SA and VIC, although it could be done.

And with NSW, and Queensland with barely enough for their own uses, (assuming that they have plenty of wind available) we have to spend days or a week in the dark, (sorry not practical). And if this happened during summer, then solar at dusk onwards would also fail. Sure batterys could give us a few more hours then nothing.

Quote

About those wave-generators:  each one becomes a floating reef with lots of little fish seeking shelter.  Little fish attract bigger fish to eat them and those attract seals and great white sharks to eat them.  Great white sharks apparently can't tell maintenance divers from seals, so....   There is a shortage of maintenance divers.  So needed maintenance isn't getting done.  Along comes a storm and sinks the system.  So either you find another way, or you shark-proof your system (Like maybe towing it into a protected cage for maintenance.).

You may not find nuclear so attractive.  It is more expensive than any other method.  Fast breeders MIGHT be a good idea, BUT:  Uncle Sam is the main supplier of reprocessed uranium fuel.  You'll need to buy that.

I'll believe fission when I see it.  Seems to be a lot of problems getting it to work.

Australia has plenty of uranium, but is politically reluctant to go that way, which l tend to agree with.

And ocean generators are not ending up as scrap due to sharks, it is because a new company getting on the bandwagon, doesn't do any real long term feasibility studies, they just plough ahead grab as much cash as they can, and develop a system above or even below the ocean, and without fail as soon as a storm hits it is trash. Then the company usually goes bankrupt, (no doubt after the CEO, has given himself a huge bonus) and someone else shows up. I have repeatedly read about this in financial stockmarket papers.

Quote

About France:  the problem isn't so much a "green" tax (even though they found the wrong solution and implemented it in a clumsy and ham-handed manner), as it is the rich vs. poor problem.  The wealthy are always happy to foist off costs of any public project onto those least able to afford it.  They pat themselves on the back and feel righteous and condemn the poor for being poor.  France has created tax after tax that has fallen disproportionately on the poor.  The poor have finally had enough.

No green energy proposal is going to work if it doesn't help people.  If your problem is how to afford groceries, you aren't too concerned about saving the world.  A starving man will kill the last spotted owl to feed his family one more day; hence, the poaching problem with wildlife in poorer countries.

For that reason, the concerns of lower-income people have to be addressed.  AOC is right.  The Green New Deal MUST include the poor.

Doug

True, France rubbishes the poor hundreds of years ago, and they still don't learn.

It should advise without stepping on the poor, but unfortunately, especially in my country, stories about pensioners in a freezing house, is common, as is premature death due to cold related illnesses.

Disgusting and sickening are to words that come to mind.

 

Edited April 21, 2019 by tmcom

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, tmcom said:

Replace them with wind farms, ok, l need to educate you on AUstralia. We have several instances a year when up to three states at a time have little to no wind. So hypothetically if our entire country is 85% wind, (we use 85% now for coal) then it is inevitable that South Australia and Victoria will have little to no wind for 3 days to a week.

Perth is too far away to connect to SA and VIC, although it could be done.

And with NSW, and Queensland with barely enough for their own uses, (assuming that they have plenty of wind available) we have to spend days or a week in the dark, (sorry not practical). And if this happened during summer, then solar at dusk onwards would also fail. Sure batterys could give us a few more hours then nothing.

About a lack of wind in some places:  that's why you have a grid.  When the wind is not blowing in one place, you flip a few switches and bring power in from somewhere else - from the opposite side of the continent if need be.  If the wind is blowing anywhere, you have power.  Your excuses only make sense if you don't have a grid.  So if you are going to transition to wind, you need to build a grid as part of the process.  You could argue that building a gird is too expensive, that you don't have enough customers to pay for it.  That would be a much better argument than "the wind ain't blowin."

How far is too far is strictly a cost-benefit issue.  If the benefits are there, do it.  If not, you'll need to find an alternative, maybe even coal.

NSW and Queensland can always add wind turbines.  If you have a shortage of generators, build more.

One type of "battery" uses wind or solar energy to pump water into a reservoir.  The water is run through penstocks to generate power when more energy is needed.

Batteries work well for private homes, but so far, they don't store enough energy for commercial use.  But battery technology is coming along and they may be feasible in the near future.

 

There are new reactor designs that, at least in theory, cannot have a meltdown.  However, they still have waste storage problems.

2 hours ago, tmcom said:

And ocean generators are not ending up as scrap due to sharks, it is because a new company getting on the bandwagon, doesn't do any real long term feasibility studies, they just plough ahead grab as much cash as they can, and develop a system above or even below the ocean, and without fail as soon as a storm hits it is trash. Then the company usually goes bankrupt, (no doubt after the CEO, has given himself a huge bonus) and someone else shows up. I have repeatedly read about this in financial stockmarket papers.

We have those problems too.  Kentucky requires coal operators to reclaim strip mined land.  Before a new mine can start digging, it has to post a reclamation bond.  But Blue Diamond Coal figured out that forfeiting a bond was cheaper than paying for the reclamation.  So as soon as they were done, they declared bankruptcy, forfeited the bond and walked off.  Kentucky solved the problem by increasing the bond requirements.

Oklahoma has a similar problem with old well sites.  They solved the problem by requiring all lease-holders to clean up after any drilling operations and also, to pay into a fund that is used to pay for orphan well cleanup.  If the well site is not cleaned up, the Corporation Commission cleans it up and sues the lease-holder for the costs.  Seeing as it is cheaper to do it themselves, most companies clean up their messes.  For sites with no identifiable lease-holder, the Corporation Commission does the cleanup and then charges the cost to the fund - which lease holders have to pay into according to their share of drilling permits issued.  Even a dry hole can cost you a fortune.  The companies have created an association to clean up old well sites.  They are advertising for unreclaimed sites so they can get them cleaned up before the Corporation Commission does it.

But those problems can be solved.  b****ing about them does no good.  Apply some brain power to the problem.

 

About your sharks:  I got a bit creative there.  But the problem seems to be inadequate maintenance.

 

One solution to some of those problems is to hold back a percentage of government payments until the facility has been in operation a minimum number of years.  If it breaks down before then, the government keeps the money.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

On 4/20/2019 at 5:31 AM, lost_shaman said:

I'd like to see Doc SJ and Chrlzs go stand in a room where the peak emission was in the 15 um band! I bet they couldn't stand to be in such a room for more than 3 seconds or so before frostbite would start kicking in.

Well, guess Doc SJ and Chrlzs were frozen just as I said. Too bad. Funny thing is cold temperatures are much more efficient at killing things than slight warming. But hey who's counting right? Certainly not the Earth is melting "believers". 

At this point there is no more "Climate Change"! That is always happening, and what is really meant is catastrophic atmospheric warming.

Let us call it what it is and debate, and I'll enjoy attempting to out debate you "believers". Should be fun. After 80 pages I assume most people should be able to get up to date.