Climate Change Report

#2,751
#2,751
Orangeslice13 said:
This is just like the o zone hole. Science is wrong at every turn and prediction but keep the faith
Click to expand...
Lol. You're spewing typical demagoguery rhetoric: Relentlessly attack the MSM, create mistrust in traditional government institutions, and diminish the role of science.
At what point do the Trump supporters not realize he's only pretending to serve the interests of "the people," and only seeks to exploit their support to advance his own interests?
 
#2,753
#2,753
Orangeslice13 said:
Seriously, do you know want battery production does to the environment? I just can’t take anyone who pushes EV seriously when It comes to climate change
Click to expand...

I can’t figure out how nuclear subs and ships are safe but nuclear power for our grid and even beyond isn’t . It’s baffling to me
 
  • Like
Reactions: 825VOL, Wireless1 and Orangeslice13
#2,755
#2,755
lostsheep said:
Lol. You're spewing typical demagoguery rhetoric: Relentlessly attack the MSM, create mistrust in traditional government institutions, and diminish the role of science.
At what point do the Trump supporters not realize he's only pretending to serve the interests of "the people," and only seeks to exploit their support to advance his own interests?
Click to expand...
Lolololol
Trump supporter?
When you have nothing try to straw man.

Trump is a shitbag and a good democrat. Just look at his spending during presidency


Edit: I actually am a well known TulsiG supporter.
Try and keep up.
 
#2,757
#2,757
OHvol40 said:
I’m not surprised you didn’t address what I said at all… just a stream of your own conscience oblivious to context.
Click to expand...
You tried to move goalposts. I just adjusted where you sat them.
Edit: and my comment was a direct response to part of your statement.
 
Last edited:
#2,758
#2,758
OHvol40 said:
The effects of increasing co2 in a finite container isn’t difficult science.

It really does perplex me that we can’t have a sincere conversation about this subject. Why is it so hard for the FF industry to admit “yeah, the effects of our admissions are p*ss poor for air quality, water quality, ecosystems in general… but the demand is so high we have nothing to currently replace the fuels we currently use.” Maybe if there was some sincerity behind their stance, people wouldn’t think they are heartless, money-crazed monsters.

Also, why can’t eco advocates flat-out explain that we currently don’t have any practical solutions to meet energy demand? That clearly we aren’t going to lessen our demand because humans are naturally glutinous, so we have to stop demonizing FF and come up with some happy-medium hybrid approaches to bridge the gap into the future while we wean off of carbon emissions, which will clearly take quite a long time.
Click to expand...
France solved this problem 40 years ago with nuclear power, without natural advantages like hydro capacity. Eco-advocates have tried for 40 years to reverse that progress, including shooting rockets a reactor that could have utilized used nuclear fuel. I know I'm beating a dead horse, but anybody who tries to tell you that we can't accomplish feats that were accomplished 40 years ago is full of it. Well, maybe not full of it, they just want to make a buck, and nuclear power is good for middle class, not the political class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1 and 0nelilreb
#2,759
#2,759
Weezy said:
France solved this problem 40 years ago with nuclear power, without natural advantages like hydro capacity. Eco-advocates have tried for 40 years to reverse that progress, including shooting rockets a reactor that could have utilized used nuclear fuel. I know I'm beating a dead horse, but anybody who tries to tell you that we can't accomplish feats that were accomplished 40 years ago is full of it. Well, maybe not full of it, they just want to make a buck, and nuclear power is good for middle class, not the political class.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree, but you hit at the heart of the real issue. Nuclear isn’t cost-effective. The infrastructure is expensive, maintenance is expensive, and waste disposal is difficult and expensive. So, Nuclear on a large scale would need subsidized and powerful people aren’t going to get stupid rich producing nuclear.
 
#2,760
#2,760
OHvol40 said:
I don’t disagree, but you hit at the heart of the real issue. Nuclear isn’t cost-effective. The infrastructure is expensive, maintenance is expensive, and waste disposal is difficult and expensive. So, Nuclear on a large scale would need subsidized and powerful people aren’t going to get stupid rich producing nuclear.
Click to expand...

Have you fallen off the wagon or is this typical hypocritical radical word play?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#2,761
#2,761
Every fossil fuel reduction will require expanded electricity use — and generation. With nuclear likely off the table, power generation will presumably be via “renewable energy,” mostly wind and solar. But these technologies are intermittent, unreliable, and weather-dependent. They must be backed up by batteries that must be recharged constantly, by more wind and solar power.

Let's Talk About Mayor Muriel Bowser’s Looming Gas Pains
 
#2,766
#2,766
It's too late....


Humans need to focus on using the rising water to help terraform deserts.

Build a mountain chain in the western Sahara on the highigest existing elevation.

Dig a canal from the west at sea level and have it go 1,000 miles into old Lake Chad.
Evaporation catches into the western flowing winds that feed the Amazon, except now 70 % of that wind stays in Africa and stops at the elevated mountain chain. 20 year's later the Congo Rainforest will have a whole northern jungle above the equator. Filled with vast deep freshwater lakes. 100,000s of square miles for companies to invest in. Now job, homes, resorts....
New food
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13 and Sandman 423
#2,767
#2,767
FcJBnF1XkAASqj8
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, sonofUT62 and allvol123
#2,774
#2,774
I've had one question and yet to see any studies on the topic:

So with two of the renewables, wind and solar, everyone is so gung-ho about, these are taking energy out of the system: the weather/climate system. Even wind is ultimately dependent upon solar for its ultimate source. So what happens to that system if we reach the point we are pulling, say 15% of the energy potential out of it? Could Texas wind farms turn Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa and the Dakotas into a Saharan-type desert or an Amazon jungle? Could it precipitate Canada being covered again with glacial ice sheets sooner than the normal cycle?

Yeah, we could be increasing carbon dioxide, a single variable into the system from fossil fuels. But wind and solar are affecting a whole host of sub-systems we have not measured or guessed at the effects or ramifications of taking energy out of.

Just thoughts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave and Wireless1
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top