- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 401
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Saying that the IPCC's demands for addressing climate change "involves costs" is like saying that swimming across the Pacific "involves water".What he said to me was in his view the climate change is the worst possible combination because it's not only uncertain BUT it's also in the future AND involves costs.
Saying that the IPCC's demands for addressing climate change "involves costs" is like saying that swimming across the Pacific "involves water".
It might also help people's minds adapt to climate change to see world leaders and outspoken scientists living austere, climate-friendly lives, absent large homes, vehicles, routine travel, and the hundreds of other luxuries they claim the common man needs to forsake.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the public transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy is the one bright spot in the "war on climate change".IOW the "costs" mentioned in the podcasts (and in the OP) refer to the idea that some products in the market place such as "fossil fuels" do not reflect the true "environmental damage" costs,...
Nah. That won't work for all the reasons that were posted in the OP.Saying that the IPCC's demands for addressing climate change "involves costs" is like saying that swimming across the Pacific "involves water".
It might also help people's minds adapt to climate change to see world leaders and outspoken scientists living austere, climate-friendly lives, absent large homes, vehicles, routine travel, and the hundreds of other luxuries they claim the common man needs to forsake. Is that so unreasonable a request?
Saying that the IPCC's demands for addressing climate change "involves costs" is like saying that swimming across the Pacific "involves water".
It might also help people's minds adapt to climate change to see world leaders and outspoken scientists living austere, climate-friendly lives, absent large homes, vehicles, routine travel, and the hundreds of other luxuries they claim the common man needs to forsake. Is that so unreasonable a request?
I admit one of the deepest roots of my AGW skepticism is the consistency and ferocity with which the IPCC et al. attack any solution that doesn't involve a radical, global centralization of economic and regulatory power.This agenda has always been about taxing an indoctrinated fear couched in western politically correct virtue signalling rhetoric.
At last governments have found a way to tax the air we breath ...... and make us feel good about it while doing so !
That golden goose for them is here to stay for a very long time as there is no kind of future climate that could ever exist that would ever prove them wrong ..... ker ching !
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the public transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy is the one bright spot in the "war on climate change".
Renewable energy technologies are maturing, coming down in cost, improving in reliability, and slowly making their way into homes based purely on market forces. Or so I've read. They seem to be the one area of human activity where "selfish self-interest" is perfectly sufficient to remedy the problem.
Without massive taxpayer subsidy these renewable industries would simply cease to exist in the free market.
They are an economic cul de sac due the inherent weather variability issues that will always dog them however efficient they get, especially in temperate Northern climates
Gas fracking is a far cleaner and cheaper alternative to current fossil fuels being used .
Plus there is potentially more than a centurys worth right beneath our feet . Whats not to like here ?
Don't forget that someone always cries wolf when there is any weather event tahat hasn't been been for a few years or decades, then the wolf is no where to be found.I admit one of the deepest roots of my AGW skepticism is the consistency and ferocity with which the IPCC et al. attack any solution that doesn't involve a radical, global centralization of economic and regulatory power.
But when you look at the different type of subsidy and the value per unit of energy... Clean energy subsidies are way too costly.The fossil fuel industry is and has been subsidized for most of the last several decades. So there's no "free market".
Look at how much more that makes the cost of green energy per unit.That's what ENERGY STORAGE is all about. "Batteries". Google them some time. If you actually knew any science you'd know that there's a lot of work ongoing in the field of battery and energy storage technologies.
I imagine some people doing it have done it improperly. But seriously, as deep as they go, I have a hard time believing that. I suspect the chemical traces of found in ground water were either accidental spills on the ground that seeped in from incompetence, or intentional dumping by those who didn't care.Fracking can be and often is damaging to groundwater. And forgive me for having to teach a PhD "mining geologist" such as yourself but groundwater is far more important to people than natural gas.
Any subsidization of fossil fuels is miniscule in terms of value per KwH generated.The fossil fuel industry is and has been subsidized for most of the last several decades. So there's no "free market".
Any subsidization of fossil fuels is miniscule in terms of value per KwH generated.
I imagine some people doing it have done it improperly. But seriously, as deep as they go, I have a hard time believing that. I suspect the chemical traces of found in ground water were either accidental spills on the ground that seeped in from incompetence, or intentional dumping by those who didn't care.
Really? Riddle me this: why would the primary source of all energy in the modern developed world require any subsidies?
And in your esteemed opinion: how much subsidization is allowed before you stop calling it a "free market"?
Well in my 'esteemed' (?) view subsidization that does not equate to the value of most (or in some cases all) the energy actually being generated by these sources.
This is just further impoverishing people whose primary concern is survival and maintaining a basic quality of life.
That requires access to affordable cheap fossil fuels in order to allow that very modest and understandable aspiration to be achieved .
Renewables as they currently stand can never be that for them
Right . Cutting through that usual blizzard of sarcastic demeaning BS in response to every post I make . What is your solution to this 'problem' and what proof do you have it would work ?Not an answer but definitely a bunch of words.
...and, again, like I said, when I see this I see what we in America call "Crocodile tears". So many (not necessarily you, per se) invoke the poors of the world only when it is in service to some benefit to themselves. In other words I honestly don't think most climate change skeptics and denialists give a flying f*** about the poor of the world. I honestly don't. What I see when I see this sort of trash is someone who desperately wants to score points against the LIBRUL who is honor bound to constantly care about the poor no matter what.
And, as noted before, unless we who are the leaders in use of fossil fuels lead the way it will all be much, much, much worse on the poor.
So if you can please dispense with what appears to be these "crocodile tears" it would be more of a reasonable discussion.
You seem to understand economics as well as you do geology (which is to say almost not at all). When we in the West, with our huge economic advantage spearhead much needed research and development on sustainable energy we create jobs and we create income streams and we, most importantly, create technology which is scalable and with scale comes cost savings and ultimately ease of propagation out to those less developed.
But since your only goal is to "score a point on the librul" you can't think that far ahead.
Thus sayeth the Lord. Of course, given your abysmal track record on knowing much if anything about ANY technical topic so far introduced I'd say the "lord" is a wee bit out of their depth.
(Go ahead, post a few more emojis...since I assume your "dissertation" is 3/4 emojis)
Right . Cutting through that usual blizzard of sarcastic demeaning BS in response to every post I make . What is your solution to this 'problem' and what proof do you have it would work ?
What is your target and why would it be better than what we already have ?
You are the guys with the 'sky is going to fall you don't do what we say ' agenda after all so you are the guys with the very big questions to answer ?
PS I like emojis
Sorry, but you are such an easy target given that you have yet to post anything that looks like technical knowledge about anything.
It's gonna hurt. I promise you that. You know why? Because we've wasted decades trying to teach folks like you who don't know science how science works and in debating every single point while the clock ticks away. The "fix" gets much harder.
If I tell you what I think should be done it would start with something you can't even stand or envisage: I think we need to take this problem seriously and believe the world's experts.
And at that point you have a fit and blubber and bluster. There's no point in outlining anything beyond that because you can't even get past the important bit.
Yes I know. Often the simple like emojis. It's a good way to get pictures into writing so there's less reading and more fun pretty colors to look at and no one has to guess what the emotional state of the author was because there's a fun picture showing you how to feel!
The English language sadly (and ironically) seems wasted on you.
So as ever no answers to my very pertinent questions then ?
Sad indeed that you do not have the knowledge nor indeed the basic intellectual acumen to address those fundamental questions ..... what a surprise
You do realize I already posted an answer. Not a complete answer, but as I suspected you'd blow past it so you could make your usual claim that people don't answer your questions.
Why would I waste effort on you? I'm serious. You blew your wad when you claimed to have a PhD in "mining geology" but then showed that you didn't have a clue about the topic.
That was all I needed to know!
You are not worth anyone's actual time unless you show your willingness to honestly discuss. But we all know where that will go, don't we?
Face it, you had a shot and you didn't make it pay.
The fact that a rando who isn't a geologist knew more about geology in your supposed area than you did was pretty much where I checked out on you.
LOL.
I haven't seen evidence of them disagreeing with me, but my reading on the topic is limited. Would you agree or disagree that at fracking sites, accidental spills of the chemicals or intentional dumping may occur, to reduce waste disposal costs?Interesting that there's yet another thing indicting fossil fuels that you disagree with the experts over.
Hmmmmm.
Yes, some of us have brains that disregard tripe.
This image for example is wrong, and unsourced. I'll bet you copied it from a blogger that doesn't really know squat:
View attachment 67346582
It shows the combustion of methane, but speaks of gasoline.
A gallon of gasoline only weighs 6.1 pounds, but it does produce about 20 pounds of CO2.
I see stuff like that, and automatically know that the person who posted it due to thge number of errors, doesn't know what they speak of, and believes what ever the blogger of some other activist told them.
My brain is not wired to accept BS, like so many other do.
Why would I waste time looking at hours of material you say is good, when this image says all I need to know about the material you think is good?
Lord of Planar said:
CO2 is good for plants. I would like to see it rise and stabilize to about 600 ppm.
Lord of Planar said:
I only see good, in creating more farmland and being a critical molecule for photosynthesis.
Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide are associated with reductions in protein and multiple key nutrients in rice, according to a new field study by an international team of scientists.
https://newsroom.uw.edu/news/increasing-co2-levels-reduce-rices-nutritional-value
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?