Climate Change

Jami77

Active member
Jan 17, 2023
160
115
43
or maybe all you will accomplish in reduced economic activity, job losses and more inflation




hopefully our grand kids will view the 'climate crisis ' as another historical example of mass hysteria and collective damaging stupidity, similar to the burning of witches in the 1600 s
Theyll be ok - solar power and wind power will take over. Theyre flying kites to harness wind now and building all thes ebeautiful wind farms everywhere - imagine what the technology will be like when my grandkids will be here.

And if you want to think about how technology changes - just think back 2 generations to when your parents and granparents were kids - I think with mine pre and post ww2 - they still had biplanes and telephones had one line and were wind up. See how far we have come in this time - now push that forward. I think we'll be fine.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,537
3,149
113
Theyll be ok - solar power and wind power will take over. Theyre flying kites to harness wind now and building all thes ebeautiful wind farms everywhere - imagine what the technology will be like when my grandkids will be here.

And if you want to think about how technology changes - just think back 2 generations to when your parents and granparents were kids - I think with mine pre and post ww2 - they still had biplanes and telephones had one line and were wind up. See how far we have come in this time - now push that forward. I think we'll be fine.
ha ha

you are delusional

decades of development and gabillions of taxpayer dollars wasted on subsidizing wind and solar and fossil fuel consumption as % of world energy consumption had declined from 82% to 81%
some might even call that a rounding error.

solar power and wind power are unreliable and suitable for niche applications only
they use far too much land and there is no way to meet the mineral demand required on the scale that would be required to replace even a meaningful fraction of fossil fuel demand


they will NOT take over
let me repeat that for you
they will NOT take over

Re: Technological change
yes tech advancements have been truly amazing over the past 100 years

two points:

  1. do not expect tech advancements to overcome fundamental laws of physics such as storing electrical energy.
  2. tech advancements can not occur if science is politicized ie current state of climate science has been politicized / bastardized which will set our true understand of our extremely complex climate back by decades maybe more
 
  • Like
Reactions: roddermac

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
13,711
2,159
113
Ghawar
Theyll be ok - solar power and wind power will take over.
Solar and wind will take over by the time economic fossil fuel and uranium
resources are fully depleted. By then extraction of minerals needed for
construction and maintenance of solar and wind power infrastructures will
no longer be cost-effective due to poor ore grade and prohibitive energy
cost. They will still be ok living a world with a population less than 10% of
what it is today.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,727
22,830
113
ha ha

you are delusional

decades of development and gabillions of taxpayer dollars wasted on subsidizing wind and solar and fossil fuel consumption as % of world energy consumption had declined from 82% to 81%
some might even call that a rounding error.

solar power and wind power are unreliable and suitable for niche applications only
they use far too much land and there is no way to meet the mineral demand required on the scale that would be required to replace even a meaningful fraction of fossil fuel demand


they will NOT take over
let me repeat that for you
they will NOT take over

Re: Technological change
yes tech advancements have been truly amazing over the past 100 years

two points:

  1. do not expect tech advancements to overcome fundamental laws of physics such as storing electrical energy.
  2. tech advancements can not occur if science is politicized ie current state of climate science has been politicized / bastardized which will set our true understand of our extremely complex climate back by decades maybe more
Have you heard of this brand new technological marvel, the heat pump?
 

Addict2sex

Well-known member
Jan 29, 2017
2,535
1,358
113
Not-So-Scary Truth About Climate Change

MONDAY, DEC 18, 2023 - 05:40 PM
Authored by John Stossel via The Epoch Times
United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry says it will take trillions of dollars to “solve” climate change. Then he says, “There is not enough money in any country in the world to actually solve this problem.”


John Kerry, U.S. special presidential envoy for climate, speaks during the Energy Session at Al Waha Theater during day two of the high-level segment of the UNFCCC COP28 Climate Conference at Expo City Dubai in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, on Dec. 2, 2023. (Stuart Wilson/COP28 via Getty Images)
Kerry has little understanding of money or how it’s created. He’s a multimillionaire because he married a rich woman. Now he wants to take more of your money to pretend to affect climate change.
Bjorn Lomborg points out that there are better things society should spend money on.
Lomborg acknowledges that a warmer climate brings problems. “As temperatures get higher, sea water, like everything else, expands. So we’re going to maybe see three feet of sea level rise. Then they say, ‘So everybody who lives within three feet of sea level, they’ll have to move!’ Well, no. If you actually look at what people do, they built dikes and so they don’t have to move.”
People in Holland did that years ago. A third of the Netherlands is below sea level. In some areas, it’s 22 feet below. Yet the country thrives. That’s the way to deal with climate change: adjust to it.
Fewer people are going to get flooded every year, despite the fact that you have much higher sea level rise. The total cost for Holland over the last half-century is about $10 billion,” says Lomborg. “Not nothing, but very little for an advanced economy over 50 years.”
For saying things like that, Lomborg is labeled “the devil.”
“The problem here is unmitigated scaremongering,” he replies. “A new survey shows that 60 percent of all people in rich countries now believe it’s likely or very likely that unmitigated climate change will lead to the end of mankind. This is what you get when you have constant fearmongering in the media.”
Some people now say they will not have children because they’re convinced that climate change will destroy the world. Lomborg points out how counterproductive that would be: “We need your kids to make sure the future is better.”
He acknowledges that climate warming will kill people.
“As temperatures go up, we’re likely to see more people die from heat. That’s absolutely true. You hear this all the time. But what is underreported is the fact that nine times as many people die from cold. ... As temperatures go up, you’re going to see fewer people die from cold.Over the last 20 years, because of temperature rises, we have seen about 116,000 more people die from heat. But 283,000 fewer people die from cold.”
That’s rarely reported in the news.
When the media doesn’t fret over deaths from heat, they grab at other possible threats.
CNN claims, “Climate Change is Fueling Extremism.”
The BBC says, “A Shifting Climate is Catalysing Infectious Disease.”
U.S. News and World Report says, “Climate Change will Harm Children’s Mental Health.”
Lomborg replies, “It’s very, very easy to make this argument that everything is caused by climate change if you don’t have the full picture.”
He points out that we rarely hear about positive effects of climate change, like global greening.
“That’s good! We get more green stuff on the planet. My argument is not that climate change is great or overall positive. It’s simply that, just like every other thing, it has pluses and minuses. ... Only reporting on the minuses, and only emphasizing worst-case outcomes, is not a good way to inform people.”
 

Addict2sex

Well-known member
Jan 29, 2017
2,535
1,358
113
Ominous Rumblings From The Climate Change Cult

TUESDAY, JAN 02, 2024 - 03:30 AM
Authored by Mark Hendrickson via The Epoch Times,
In the past, I’ve referred to the well-funded, well-organized, but scientifically vacuous climate alarmists as a “cabal” with an explicitly socialist agenda.
Indeed, in a political context that’s exactly what they are. But in a religious context, they’re a cult fanatically pushing a rigid dogma.
The climate change dogma is roughly this:
  • The concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has increased markedly over the past century (true);
  • human activities have contributed to that increase (true);
  • Earth has warmed by more than a degree since escaping the harsh Little Ice Age in the 19th century (also true, thank goodness!);
  • temperatures will continue to rise to dangerous, catastrophe-inducing levels (unproven, unknowable, and unlikely) unless human society is radically transformed by drastically curbing the human use of fossil fuels (a power-seeking agenda that would inflict widespread impoverishment and suffering on billions of human beings).
In connection with the United Nation’s recently completed annual extravaganza in climate change propaganda and hysteria—COP28—long-time alarmist Al Gore (who still wants today the “wrenching transformation” of society that he called for in his 1992 jeremiad “Earth in the Balance”) lamented the fact that some people actually disagree with the wildly speculative alarmist predictions (guesses) that he and his fellow alarmists are making about the future.
He blamed social media and algorithms for spreading what he considers disinformation (in more neutral terms: differences of perception and understanding) about climate change.




Mr. Gore explicitly called for the ban (the censorship) of social media algorithms—implicitly, those that present apostate points of view, such as de-emphasizing the role of CO2 in climate change or maintaining that Earth isn’t on the brink of climate catastrophe.(Here’s a link to the video. Start at the 22:00 minute marker to hear him say it.) He asserts that the algorithms pull listeners down into “rabbit holes” where they enter into “echo chambers.”
The “echo chamber” assertion is hugely ironic, a classic case of psychological projection.
It’s the climate change cabal/cult that sets up echo chambers at events like COP28, whereas outside of those echo chambers, there’s a wide diversity of scientific research that calls into question key parts of the cultists’ dogma from many different angles—the very opposite of an echo chamber.
Here are several recent examples of scientific dissent from the alarmist projections of the climate change cult:
  • In Hydrological Sciences Journal, Demetris Koutsoyiannis and Christos Vournas found that the post-1900 increase in the CO2 concentration (from 300 parts per million to 420 parts per million) “has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect, which remains dominated by the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere.”
  • Writing in the journal Earth’s Future, W. Jackson Davis “documents an overall negative correlation between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last 210 million years,” according to NoTricksZone.com. A “negative correlation” —i.e., when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rises, more often than not temperatures fall.
  • Like other scientists in earlier years, Allan T. Emrén, writing in the International Journal of Global Warming, “found that the rate of change in CO2 concentration is controlled by global temperature rather than vice versa.”
  • Norwegians John K. Dagsvik and Sigmund H. Moen (a statistician and civil engineer, respectively), writing in a Statistics Norway discussion paper, concluded that “the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.”
  • Other scientists believe that the “hottest ever” summer that the climate change cult has hyped in 2023 (which actually, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data, was the 15th hottest since 1910 on mean temperatures and 22nd hottest for maximum temperatures) wasn’t triggered by CO2, but by a significant increase in solar radiation and/or by the 2022 eruption of the Tonga-Hunga volcano having caused a 10 percent increase in water vapor in the atmosphere.
  • Perhaps the greatest challenge to the climate change cultists’ belief that CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming is a study published in Nature partner journal Climate and Atmospheric Science by H. Nair and colleagues. Those scientists came to the arresting conclusion that “we would expect from a 100% switchover from fossil fuels to zero-emission renewables, the net radiative heating would increase drastically.”
  • This, according to NoTricksZone.com, is due to “a dramatic reduction in climate-cooling aerosol (pollution) emissions,“ and, ”because aerosol emissions have a relatively greater climate impact by reflecting shortwave radiation, the net effect of transitioning to renewables will be to ‘drastically’ increase Earth’s temperatures over the coming decades.”
The above examples of scientific studies running counter to climate-change-cult orthodoxy indicate that the science surrounding the issue is anything but settled in the alarmists’ favor.
Let’s switch from the science to the economics of transitioning away from fossil fuel usage. If the climate change cult succeeds in radically suppressing fossil fuel usage, human societies would be much poorer. That would be a tragedy with potentially deadly consequences. While human beings can no more tame the climate than the legendary King Canute could control the tides, the fact is that it’s prosperity that best enables human beings to cope with the adverse weather events that will periodically assail us regardless of whether the world cools or warms.
Fossil fuels not only have the advantage of being much more reliable and steady than wind and solar, but they’re also more efficient and economical. The ever-astute Rupert Darwall computed, “Thanks to [Britain’s increased use of] renewables, 13.6 GW (15.6 percent) more generating capacity [in 2020 compared to 2009] produced 64.5 TWh (17.1 percent) less electricity.” This is a path to energy and therefore societal impoverishment. The economics of wind energy are brutal for taxpayers. Jonathan Lesser computed that “the average subsidy for each green job created will be over $2 million per year.”
It’s clear that there are plenty of reasons to slow down, if not halt, the frenetic drive to eliminate fossil fuels. The pell-mell charge toward renewables isn’t rational; rather, it’s the fanaticism of a quasi-religious cult.
 

Skoob

Well-known member
Jun 1, 2022
7,175
4,330
113
Unproven and marketing hype. This technology is also not able to heat/cool apartment buildings which as you know cities are comprised of in the most population dense areas.

Needless to say that the expense of purchasing, installing and maintaining these is out of reach for most people and they will never recoup those costs in savings.
Maybe if the technology improves and becomes more affordable in the future like other things it could work, for houses but years away from that and not a solution to replace natural gas heating.

Here's a though, maybe reduce our taxes so people could afford EV's and heat pumps and that will encourage progress in the technology?
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
27,629
8,380
113
Room 112
Or your grandkids will see you as the kind of idiot who not only allowed it to happen but actively tried to make it happen faster.

It is the middle of summer right now in Australia.

Looking at forecast for their largest city Sydney

DAILY FORECAST
TODAY
23/01

24°19°
Pleasant with clouds and sunshine; a refreshing afternoon breeze
13%

WED
24/01

30°23°
Mostly cloudy, becoming windier and warmer
3%

THU
25/01

33°25°
Cloudy and hot
2%

FRI
26/01

37°20°
Mostly cloudy and unseasonably hot; breezy in the afternoon
25%

SAT
27/01

23°19°
Cooler with low clouds; a refreshing afternoon breeze
5%

SUN
28/01

24°18°
Low clouds breaking for some sun
4%

MON
29/01

27°19°
Intervals of clouds and sunshine
25%

TUE
30/01

26°20°
Partly sunny
5%

WED
31/01

27°19°
Mostly cloudy; a little rain in the morning followed by a passing shower in the afternoon
58%

THU
01/02

26°21°
A little morning rain; otherwise, mostly cloudy
56%


Next largest city Melbourne
DAILY FORECAST
TODAY
23/01

30°21°
After a cloudy start, sunshine returns
1%

WED
24/01

31°16°
Very warm with clouds moving away to leave sunshine
15%

THU
25/01

28°16°
Beautiful with sunny periods
15%

FRI
26/01

23°12°
Not as warm but pleasant with intervals of clouds and sunshine; a refreshing afternoon breeze
3%

SAT
27/01

22°12°
Pleasant with intervals of clouds and sunshine; a refreshing afternoon breeze
25%

SUN
28/01

25°14°
Brilliant sunshine
1%

MON
29/01

30°17°
Mostly sunny and very warm
4%

TUE
30/01

28°16°
Partly sunny
0%

WED
31/01

27°16°
Areas of low clouds, then some sun
1%

THU
01/02

26°15°
Mostly sunny
1%
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,727
22,830
113
So the fact that its not so hot in one part of the country means there is no heat wave elsewhere?
 
Toronto Escorts