Climate Change Report

#326
#326
The Kyoto Protocol failed for the same reasons the Paris Treaty did; everyone talks big and then does nothing.

Geologically we are in an ice age. The Earth changes its tilt, the magnetic fields move, and continents shift.

The climate also changes. The planet has spent eons a lot warmer than it is now.

It's poloraizing because it's debatable how much humans impact it.

Most people lean towards not caring or believing because so much if the science that was used for this has, on multiple occasions, been outed as being tampered with or outright lied about.

A lot of scientist also disagree or have done counter studies.

Anyway, do real, honest, objective science, and then there may be persuasion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolStrom, tennvols77 and hog88
#331
#331
Weezy said:
I agree that a carbon tax is the best option. However, the French nationalized their electricity sector and so far, it's the only example of a decarbonized grid sans hydro.

I disagree on the Paris Agreement. It's a bunch of politicians patting themselves on the back when in reality it will accomplish nothing. Setting targets is hot garbage when there's no chance they are met. It's even more ridiculous when Germany and China are praised as climate leaders. Both are hooked on coal for the foreseeable future. If Germany gives up coal, it is going to be for the Russian gas. I expect much of Europe to start turning the Russian gas as renewables flame out on them.
Click to expand...
While I agree that the targets are largely meaningless, I think that there can be substantive steps forward from the Paris Agreement like emissions monitoring and verification.

Natural gas is much cleaner than coal so I’m ok with the idea of it being used as a bridge to a carbon neutral future. It would do well under a carbon tax and is a good economic opportunity for the US too. It’s what has led to our slight decrease in carbon emissions. I don’t think it’s compatible with the 2 degree target, but it’s better than nothing and every little bit counts.

The grand irony of climate change deniers is that it inevitably ensures that governments will end up taking the draconian actions they so fear like nationalizing their electricity sector. If the political pendulum swings back as hard as it did in 2016 we may see this in the “Green New Deal” in a few years.
 
Last edited:
#332
#332
Grand Vol said:
Bolded is the problem.

Let's put it this way, that's like asking a person "hey, Ralph, how much in taxes would you like to give the government? It's a voluntary number you come up with."

"Well, Bob, I'm just kinda getting started in the marketplace, so I really don't want to pay taxes at all."

"Yeah, I can understand that. Even though you make a bunch of money now, you're still 'developing' in the market so let's defer that tax level for like 15 years. Sound fair?"

"You mean I get to make as much money as I want over the next 15 years and not pay a dime? What happens if I become the worlds wealthiest person in the next couple of years? What if I tell you to piss off in 15 years?"

"Sure, Ralph, you can do anything you want over the next 15 years. And I don't know if you become the world's wealthiest person in a couple of years. We'll have to see about that. And we'd sincerely hope you wouldn't tell us to piss off. That'd make us a little angry or something."

Now, you can play politics all you want with this nonsense and be like some other mouthbreathers around here claiming "Trump Drone" when it comes to my stance on this. But there is no way the Paris Agreement was fair by any means to developed countries by forcing them to reduce carbon emissions while China and India got a pass because they are "developing." Wouldn't it be far better in their "developing" economies to go green now instead of giving them a pass for nearly a decade and a half? Isn't China producing a metric crap-ton of solar panels? Why not wind turbines? Why not additional hydroelectric? (other than the environmental crowd screeching about that as well) Why not nuclear? Why not develop technologies in the offshore hydropower realm and corner the market on that one?

No, the Paris Agreement was not good for anyone except making a select group of environmental activists happy. You know it, I know it, the world knows it and Trump knew it when he pulled us out. So, what would make it a better deal? Making China, India and others set hard targets in carbon reductions or piss off.

Which is exactly what they would have told the world had the issue been forced when the Agreement was being hammered out.
Click to expand...
Trump Drone ;)

I’m not saying the Paris Agreement is some fantastic silver bullet. I was just pointing out how your misrepresentation was self-contradictory.

And of course you are still misrepresenting China’s efforts. They didn’t offer to do nothing for 15 years. In total, China invested three times as much money into alternative energy as the US did last year. Per capita that comes out to slightly less money per person, but if we’re going to compare per capita then it’s relevant to point out that their per capita emissions are still less than half of ours. Last year nearly half of the world’s investment into alternative energy came from China. They have been and continue to build nuclear power plants, making up more than half of the world’s new nuclear investment. Hydropower is currently their largest alternative energy source and they continue to develop that as well, unlike us. They are positioning themselves to be an energy superpower in the future and we are not. Now, is China all roses and sunshine? No. Could and should they do more? Yes. But the same is true of everyone.

Like I said earlier, the targets are largely meaningless. Actions are what count. In reality, what would be the difference between hard targets like Kyoto and the voluntary contribution/peer pressure system of the Paris Agreement? Brazil’s largest trade partner is the EU. Many thought Bolsonaro would go the way of Trump but when the EU threatened to cancel their free trade agreement he got in line. Of course, it’s still early and we’ll see what happens there. But imo there is not much difference in practice between hard targets with penalties and soft targets with peer pressure.

Anyway, thanks for offering up something. I’ll patiently wait on the details of that “better deal” from the Trump Administration.
 
#333
#333
AirVol said:
View attachment 178941
Click to expand...
g1323600941277324307.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#334
#334
Remy said:
Funny you should mention that. The EU crowd never intended to meet them, their intent all along was to simply cash the $100 billion or so checks we, the USA, was committed to cut them annually. We actually after withdrawing from this useless monstrosity of a treaty actually met our carbon obligations. So, before the whole thing falls apart Macron of France decided to send in some significant coins before everybody went home and forget about it. He significantly increased the gasoline tax in France to fight "climate change." So he's going to use the money to build giant atmospheric carbon scrubbers? No. Use the money to provide incentives to convert to elecric cars? No. Provide the beef and pork industries in France with Beano supplies to cut down on farm animal flatulence? No. The money basically goes in to the general fund for their politicians to say they are fighting climate change. The French people have finally figured out what the con the whole thing is, Macron's favorability is polling at 20% and there's rioting and burning in the streets across the country. The biggest con is and always has been you must be taxed significantly NOW to keep your kids from frying like bacon tomorrow morning but they never connect the dots that this money is going to be used to build giant planetary carbon scrubbers. It's never been about science, it's always been about drawing a conclusion then cherry picking data and producing modeling with foregone outcomes by the modet producers and calling that science.
Click to expand...
Obama only commited $3 billion to the green climate fund, and none of that money was going to the EU. They’re paying in too, and picking up our slack. And we still haven’t met our obligations either.

If you are worried about what will be done with the revenue you should consider a revenue-neutral carbon tax or fee and dividend.
 
#335
#335
marcusluvsvols said:
Long Invisible, Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering (Op-Ed)

TL,DR... while its not true that a single active volcano eruption can release more c02 than all human activity, that is false, the numbers scientists have been giving for the last couple decades measuring carbon released by volcanoes has increased 6x...and thats just the active volcanoes, and only measured in the smoke/vapor plume. The fact is, volcanoes seep co2 from all around the actual opening, and inactvive volcanoes release half as much as an active volcano.

So basically, they release orders of magnitude more carbon than what scientists have been reporting, and thats with only 9% of them having even been measured. Gotta keep the funding rolling in by blaming it all on humans....
Click to expand...

Nope, that's not what that article concludes. 2x, 3x, 6x, whatever reference you want to use doesn't compare as we still emit orders of magnitude (>100x) more CO2 than volcanoes. We can tell that the CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels not just from basic math but also because plant matter has a different C13/C12 ratio than natural atmospheric/volcanic CO2 and we have measured the change of the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2.
 
#336
#336
shotgun83 said:
The Kyoto Protocol failed for the same reasons the Paris Treaty did; everyone talks big and then does nothing.

Geologically we are in an ice age. The Earth changes its tilt, the magnetic fields move, and continents shift.

The climate also changes. The planet has spent eons a lot warmer than it is now.

It's poloraizing because it's debatable how much humans impact it.

Most people lean towards not caring or believing because so much if the science that was used for this has, on multiple occasions, been outed as being tampered with or outright lied about.

A lot of scientist also disagree or have done counter studies.

Anyway, do real, honest, objective science, and then there may be persuasion.
Click to expand...
It’s unfortunate that fossil fuel interests have disseminated enough misinformation to where this belief is common. The vast majority of scientists do not deny that climate change is real and almost entirely caused by human carbon pollution. The very small handful of naysayers typically do not have relevant expertise, do not publish in scientific journals, and are often openly funded by fossil fuel interests. Ironically, even oil companies’ own climate research dating back to at least the 70s is largely consistent with the current mainstream, and also consistent with calculations done back in the 1800s. When sincere climate change doubters have done real, honest, objective science, they have been persuaded.

Natural cycles would have the planet cooling today. We can directly measure the increased CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and we can directly measure how much additional energy that CO2 is trapping via the greenhouse effect using spectroscopy (that number is approximately equivalent to the energy released from 4 hiroshima atomic bombs going off every second). Spectroscopy itself is a well-established science that dates back to the mid-1800s and has many real-world applications. Unfortunately, the science is as settled as the “theory” of gravity. The real debate isn’t about whether the problem exists or not, the debate is what to do about it.
 
#337
#337
BartW said:
It’s unfortunate that fossil fuel interests have disseminated enough misinformation to where this belief is common. The vast majority of scientists do not deny that climate change is real and almost entirely caused by human carbon pollution. The very small handful of naysayers typically do not have relevant expertise, do not publish in scientific journals, and are often openly funded by fossil fuel interests. Ironically, even oil companies’ own climate research dating back to at least the 70s is largely consistent with the current mainstream, and also consistent with calculations done back in the 1800s. When sincere climate change doubters have done real, honest, objective science, they have been persuaded.

Natural cycles would have the planet cooling today. We can directly measure the increased CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and we can directly measure how much additional energy that CO2 is trapping via the greenhouse effect using spectroscopy (that number is approximately equivalent to the energy released from 4 hiroshima atomic bombs going off every second). Spectroscopy itself is a well-established science that dates back to the mid-1800s and has many real-world applications. Unfortunately, the science is as settled as the “theory” of gravity. The real debate isn’t about whether the problem exists or not, the debate is what to do about it.
Click to expand...

My God the amount of conjecture in this post is astounding. So did the world just stafy experiencing climate change in the 1800's? I mean your post is comical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shotgun83, Obsessed and AM64
#338
#338
BigOrangeTrain said:
My God the amount of conjecture in this post is astounding. So did the world just stafy experiencing climate change in the 1800's? I mean your post is comical.
Click to expand...
Says the guy who still thinks it’s the sun... 😂

Look BOT I’m sure you’re an alright guy in real life and I’m sorry we make you a punching bag sometimes but honestly brother you have shared some of the most ridiculous views, especially on science topics, of this entire forum. And that’s saying a lot! Glass houses and all, ya know?

If you don’t want me to just laugh right back at you please be more specific in your criticism of my post.
 
#343
#343
C-south said:
Wasn’t Miami suppose to be under water by now?
Click to expand...

I’m surprised the banking/lending folks aren’t involved in this scam. Think about it, if a beachside condo is suppose to be underwater in 15 years, do you think you could get a loan?
 
#345
#345
The argument I see thrown out a lot is that those scientists who refute global warming are getting paid by big oil.

Sure, some probably are.

However I can tell you also that the scientist who are claiming global catastrophe are lying.

Their science isn't real. It's a lie. They falsified data to meet the conclusion they wanted.

Why are those who are so hardcore into "man made global warming" not also yelling about having real, objective, science done??

Because most of them are invested politically.

We are in a geologic ice age.
Is the climate shifting?? Yes. It has shifted for eons!!

But until I have real science that has not been tampered with, I won't support their narrative.

For your viewing pleasure:

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend

Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#346
#346
shotgun83 said:
The argument I see thrown out a lot is that those scientists who refute global warming are getting paid by big oil.

Sure, some probably are.

However I can tell you also that the scientist who are claiming global catastrophe are lying.

Their science isn't real. It's a lie. They falsified data to meet the conclusion they wanted.

Why are those who are so hardcore into "man made global warming" not also yelling about having real, objective, science done??

Because most of them are invested politically.

We are in a geologic ice age.
Is the climate shifting?? Yes. It has shifted for eons!!

But until I have real science that has not been tampered with, I won't support their narrative.

For your viewing pleasure:

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend

Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago
Click to expand...

The hypocrisy you have to appreciate is that while they accuse one group of being paid by big oil and couldn't possibly be objective is that their group is paid to prove just the opposite. Mercenary is mercenary. Research backed by governments, foundations, etc never seems to end because the money is too good, so the only conclusion is always an interim one that the sky is falling and more research is needed to prevent catastrophe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shotgun83
#347
#347
We're all doomed unless we do something. DOOMED I tell you.




Rational and reasonable of course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#348
#348
BartW said:
Trump Drone ;)

I’m not saying the Paris Agreement is some fantastic silver bullet. I was just pointing out how your misrepresentation was self-contradictory.

And of course you are still misrepresenting China’s efforts. They didn’t offer to do nothing for 15 years. In total, China invested three times as much money into alternative energy as the US did last year. Per capita that comes out to slightly less money per person, but if we’re going to compare per capita then it’s relevant to point out that their per capita emissions are still less than half of ours. Last year nearly half of the world’s investment into alternative energy came from China. They have been and continue to build nuclear power plants, making up more than half of the world’s new nuclear investment. Hydropower is currently their largest alternative energy source and they continue to develop that as well, unlike us. They are positioning themselves to be an energy superpower in the future and we are not. Now, is China all roses and sunshine? No. Could and should they do more? Yes. But the same is true of everyone.

Like I said earlier, the targets are largely meaningless. Actions are what count. In reality, what would be the difference between hard targets like Kyoto and the voluntary contribution/peer pressure system of the Paris Agreement? Brazil’s largest trade partner is the EU. Many thought Bolsonaro would go the way of Trump but when the EU threatened to cancel their free trade agreement he got in line. Of course, it’s still early and we’ll see what happens there. But imo there is not much difference in practice between hard targets with penalties and soft targets with peer pressure.

Anyway, thanks for offering up something. I’ll patiently wait on the details of that “better deal” from the Trump Administration.
Click to expand...

China has five times the population we have. And the electrification of their nation started two decades ago has taken its toll.

Here's the problem. Coal fired plants still make up 66% of Chinese electrical generation. Even per capita, that's a whole metric butt-ton of coal being burned and way more carbon emissions as a whole. Yes, they make strides in hydro where we haven't, namely because they really don't have the pesky environmentalists screeching about those sorts of things. They want the Three Gorges Dam, sorry, we're building it and your family is going to move and just don't care about the endangered species of grass we're about to kill. We try to build a hydro plant, first you have idiots like California screaming about it not being "renewable" enough since it may impact the environment, then you have years of lawsuits pending in court to stop it, then construction time, etc. It's no wonder we don't have more of it.

However, the main point was being India and China, which are two of the world's worst offenders, were not even taken to task by the Paris Agreement. They had fifteen years of a "pass" to do whatever they wanted. Now, you know as well as I do there are no incentives to build more renewable power plants because China has a huge amount of coal under its borders. Provided, they stopped a lot of new projects since the current plants were generating at under capacity, but what incentives do they have to retrofit them to natural gas? They don't have the reserves we do in that area and the Chinese are going to continue using resources they control rather than buying enough LNG on the world market to replace coal fired plants.

There is no incentive to change from coal. There won't be any incentive to change from coal in 2030.

India's numbers are worse. 75% of their overall power capacity (which needs are growing) comes from coal. And like China, they don't have access to large deposits of NG either. Their coal is a poor source of fuel as well. However, where is the incentive to change due to their growing economy? Do they economically slit their throats while they are "growing?"

Yes, we have a great many things we could be doing in our own nation in regards to alternative power sources and I think we've taken great strides in that regard. But only when your idiot friends in the environmental sector STFU and allow such things to move forward. Hydro, geothermal, wind, solar, nuclear and NG are the best options we have moving forward. Tax breaks and incentives are helpful in that regard. Doing away with laws requiring homeowners to hook up to electrical grids even if they have their own sustainable electrical sources is another. (The arguments against that are horrible) Better access to recycling and changing the lifestyle of "disposable" Americans is a worthy goal and is cheaper in the long run.

Regardless, the Paris Agreement was a real bad deal for us. Just ask the French what they think of the effects of implementing the provisions.
 
#349
#349
ClearwaterVol said:
Still gotta do it. We have been listening to the right for years tell us this was going to wreck the economy. It is going to do a lot more than that if we keep on being selfish pricks. My personal opinion is that it will simply create new industries.
Click to expand...

Correct
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top