Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Belligerent Savant » 17 Jun 2022 00:45 wrote:.
and further, that 'climate change' is not the[b] imminent threat they proclaim it to be. Indeed, the 'imminent threat' narrative serves in part to further agendas principally to benefit the very few at the expense of the many.[/b]
Joe Hillshoist » Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:56 pm wrote:Belligerent Savant » 17 Jun 2022 00:45 wrote:.
and further, that 'climate change' is not the[b] imminent threat they proclaim it to be. Indeed, the 'imminent threat' narrative serves in part to further agendas principally to benefit the very few at the expense of the many.[/b]
Where I live it is. In Australia Climate Change has been causing the worst and most extreme weather on record for over a decade. It has interfered with crop production and droughts, floods, heat and humidity have caused the national stock herd numbers to drop.
This has been happening since the late 00s.
20 years ago the city of Lismore built a levee that would have coped with the worst historical floods on record. Its been breached twice in five years.
Yellen argued that the best way to address the energy crisis in the "medium-term" is to transition the country off of fossil fuels.
That's a thermodynamic impossibility within the current realm of knowledge. In short: You can't.
To make an EV battery you must dig up 500,000 lbs. of earth. For one battery. Which has a service life, after which it must be replaced. Which has no current means of economically recycling the components either, so unless you'd like the price of the pack to wildly exceed the crazy levels it is at now you will throw the old away and buy another one with another half-million pounds of earth dug up. All of which are dug up, transported and processed using fossil fuels because there is no other rational way to do so.
Renewables in the form of wind and solar require these fossil fuel inputs, as do storage batteries. Because the energy they produce is uncertain, that is the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow, you can never guarantee how much output you will have from them even if you could somehow resolve the fossil fuel requirement for creating the panels, concrete and blades for the windmills, and rare earth materials you must dig out of the ground and refine to make them. For this reason the energy they produce will always fluctuate wildly in price simply due to fluctuations in supply.
If you build "enough" that you're comfortable you will not be short there will be times there is so much supply the price is zero and the economic incentive to build them will likewise be zero. At any build-out less than this there will be times when you demand it but can't have it. Of course the time when you demand it and can't have it will be at the most inconvenient time of all, typically when its freezing-butt cold or broiling hot.
Look at the price of these things and the fossil alternatives over long periods of time. Natural gas has seen wild spikes in both directions in price. So has wind power, solar and similar. There are only two that do not over our history of use: Coal and fission-based nuclear.
It doesn't matter one bit whether you like any of this or not. These are facts and unless you want a power bill that varies by 400% or more (natural gas has seen price variations of ten times or more in reasonably recent history) you are out of your mind to not build the base demand capacity out of things that do not have that fluctuation and aren't dependent on those that do.
This isn't complicated. Yellen famously said that inflation was "transitory" not all that long ago -- about a year back -- when she was arguing for, and implementing, the next round of wild money-printing after Trump did it too and I remind you that she has now been proved to be completely full of crap.
Now she's doing it again and if you let her and this Administration get away with it I hope you are ok with the wild price spikes and shortages, up to and including black-outs, that these policies will lead to.
Belligerent Savant » Tue Jun 21, 2022 1:59 pm wrote:Once more: I'm not arguing that climate change isn't real. My primary issues are that the reasons for it are myriad and I'm skeptical that lockdowns and other hard restrictions/measures inflicted on populations at large -- while the uber-wealthy and large corporations largely get by via loopholes or other escape routes -- will have any real positive impact on current trends.
I also have minimal confidence current "green" tech offers sustainable solutions, or that managed/resourceful usage of traditional energy sources would create 'imminent' harms.
Based on what data can these weather patterns be attributed directly to "climate change" as currently presented to the public
My primary issues are that the reasons for it are myriad and I'm skeptical that lockdowns and other hard restrictions/measures inflicted on populations at large -- while the uber-wealthy and large corporations largely get by via loopholes or other escape routes -- will have any real positive impact on current trends.
DrEvil » Wed Jun 22, 2022 3:50 pm wrote:Based on what data can these weather patterns be attributed directly to "climate change" as currently presented to the public
This right here highlights your fundamental lack of understanding. The scientists aren't saying that this and that extreme weather was a direct consequence of climate change, but that the odds of those events happening are higher today because of climate change.
DrEvil » Wed Jun 22, 2022 3:50 pm wrote:My primary issues are that the reasons for it are myriad and I'm skeptical that lockdowns and other hard restrictions/measures inflicted on populations at large -- while the uber-wealthy and large corporations largely get by via loopholes or other escape routes -- will have any real positive impact on current trends.
You would be wrong. Humans are responsible for close to 100% of the warming (more than 100% by some measures, if you count the cooling that should be happening). And who is talking about lockdowns and hard restrictions? You wouldn't be referring to the paper that popped up about how we will need to reduce our emissions as much as covid-lockdown reduced them every year? Because they weren't saying we should continue the lockdowns for the environment, but that we need an equivalent reduction. It was meant as a stark reminder of just how much we need to cut our emissions.
But let's say you're right, and there are other factors at play in the warming? So what? All that means is we're extra fucked because it's not caused by us, so there's probably nothing we can do about that part of the warming. We should still do everything we can to fight the part of the warming we're responsible for, because if you're right it's worse than we think.
Report: World Needs Equivalent Of Pandemic Lockdown Every Two Years To Meet Paris Carbon Emission Goals
Carlie PorterfieldForbes Staff
The dramatic drop in global carbon emissions seen during the early days of the pandemic and global shutdowns would need to be matched every two years for the rest of the decade in order to meet the goals outlined in the Paris climate agreement, according to a new study, though the authors don't recommend that the world rely on “lockdowns” to help battle climate change.
KEY FACTS
Published in Nature Climate Change, the report found that carbon emissions fell by about 2.6 billion metric tons in 2020, or roughly a 7% drop from the previous year, a historic decrease.
However, researchers said further drops in carbon output—1 billion to 2 billion metric tons per year—are needed for global emissions to meet the safe worldwide temperature range defined by the Paris Agreement to dodge the effects of climate change.
....
"...well yea, that would be reasonable. It's imminent climate change, folks! WE need to do something!"
I can hear the thoughts circling in some heads:
"...well yea, that would be reasonable. It's imminent climate change, folks! WE need to do something!"
There are direct parallels between the covid-19 M.O. perpetrated across the globe and the current 'climate change' campaigns.
I don't believe anyone can say that everyday humans are the primary culprits with certainty, despite blarings otherwise.
Report: World Needs Equivalent Of Pandemic Lockdown Every Two Years To Meet Paris Carbon Emission Goals
Belligerent Savant » 22 Jun 2022 04:59 wrote:
Based on what data can these weather patterns be attributed directly to "climate change" as currently presented to the public, versus a number of factors not attributable directly to consumption/energy usage by regular/average human beings (vs. large-scale corporate and/or wealthy-class usage) as the primary/sole factor?
You saying it's because of "da climate change" doesn't make it so.
Once more: I'm not arguing that climate change isn't real. My primary issues are that the reasons for it are myriad and I'm skeptical that lockdowns and other hard restrictions/measures inflicted on populations at large -- while the uber-wealthy and large corporations largely get by via loopholes or other escape routes -- will have any real positive impact on current trends.
I also have minimal confidence current "green" tech offers sustainable solutions, or that managed/resourceful usage of traditional energy sources would create 'imminent' harms.
You saying it's because of "da climate change" doesn't make it so.
Belligerent Savant » 22 Jun 2022 04:59 wrote:You saying it's because of "da climate change" doesn't make it so.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests