Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

No surprised since accepting the scientific consensus means we all have to do something. Sadly, the longer we let the deniers drive policy action (or lack of policy action) the more difficult the necessary actions become. The time for easy and cheap action was decades ago. The longer we dither, the harder and more expensive our choices become.

This denier/heritic/apostate has been living off the grid now with a Carbon footprint that is a small fraction of the MMGW Cultists posting on this thread. So the question isn't what the fascists are going to mandate on others...what are The MMGWC willing to LEAD with yourselves if you really believe the hype?

Do you eat Red meat...bad.
Do you drive a truck...bad and dirty.
What is the sq ft of your energy/resource gobbling house?
Do you run air conditioning in your house in the summer?...bad.
Do you drive a hybrid low CO2 car?
Do you burn wood in a fireplace or your trash in a bbl?

Ah...so the Cultists want to force others into Change...when they won't lead the way? This is why they have absolutely no credibility because if I really believed my way of life was killing the planet and future for my kids, of course I would change...but its all a scam like Peak Oil, Population Bomb, Ethanol, and the Big Bang....

Ha ha ha...."Some Pigs are more equal than other pigs".

The first world whites want to impose their ways on the 2nd and 3rd world minorities...looks like the same old Colonialism to me. I thought the world was over this...sadly not.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

So, why, again, does the precautionary principle not apply? Jack? Anyone?

Apparently Gord thinks that there are mitigation and adaptation strategies. I have no idea what they could be.

The precautionary principles applies more to human activities than to natural disasters against which some precautions can be taken; e.g. do not build on a flood plain.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Happy?

Of course. Always, even on rainy days. And more importantly, satisfied.

I wish the same for you.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

This denier/heritic/apostate has been living off the grid now with a Carbon footprint that is a small fraction of the MMGW Cultists posting on this thread. So the question isn't what the fascists are going to mandate on others...what are The MMGWC willing to LEAD with yourselves if you really believe the hype?

Do you eat Red meat...bad.
Do you drive a truck...bad and dirty.
What is the sq ft of your energy/resource gobbling house?
Do you run air conditioning in your house in the summer?...bad.
Do you drive a hybrid low CO2 car?
Do you burn wood in a fireplace or your trash in a bbl?

Ah...so the Cultists want to force others into Change...when they won't lead the way? This is why they have absolutely no credibility because if I really believed my way of life was killing the planet and future for my kids, of course I would change...but its all a scam like Peak Oil, Population Bomb, Ethanol, and the Big Bang....

Ha ha ha...."Some Pigs are more equal than other pigs".

The first world whites want to impose their ways on the 2nd and 3rd world minorities...looks like the same old Colonialism to me. I thought the world was over this...sadly not.

So.... that makes three of us here on this thread attempting to lead by example living primarily off solar (you, Mike and I).. even though my motives remain questionable to some.

Still waiting to hear from Jack....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mlj_2ivCMlQ

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

May I state for the record - it's awesome that Kenomac has installed solar in his home/business. And, yes, I must admit it lends cred to his position on solar.

Since he's volunteered numbers already, i think it's valid to seek clarification. He states $38,000 out of pocket, and it's installed on a business. In my business I write off expenses, I imagine he would too. If someone proclaims "I spent X on solar" but was able to write it down or off against income... it's reasonable to want to know that, especially if someone else is using this info to decide whether they might install solar as well.

When I read his comment, I hear mainly angry consumer, not disappointed environmentalist. Of course concerns about the economics of solar are valid too.




Ummm, I don't think that my having a bigger solar system than Kenomac would make you any less annoyed with me, or one whit more concerned about AGW. Not all of us own commercial buildings, either.

I mentioned how the Canadian public has acted on their concern about CC; you saw how well that was received. . There's no winning, I won't play. Sorry.

...except: Last year I got 100% of my boat battery charging from solar. Any points there?

Actually, I personally don't think it's particularly awesome that Ken installed all the solar because as it turns out, he hasn't made much electricity with it and it was a big waste of money and someday he's going to have to tear it all down and dispose of it. But I think it's great to finally hear you saying something about him that's consistent with your stated position on AGW and alternative energy.

Again, WHY does it matter so much to you what Ken's intentions were in installing all that solar? Our environment doesn't notice or care WHY someone has a smaller carbon footprint, just that they do it. I'm not nominating Ken for eco sainthood here, just pointing out that he actually did what you advocate for us all to do. I'd expect you to care a lot more about green actions and actual choices than green talk. Green choices actually make a difference, green talk is just another source of hot air.

As for being annoyed at you, it would make a HUGE difference to me if I had some evidence that you were actually living what you advocate the rest of us do and setting an example consistent with your stated views for the rest of us to follow. We all have heard that drinking isn't particularly good for us but most of us do it to some degree anyway. You know how annoying someone is who lectures you about being an alcoholic when you know that they drink just about as much as you do? But if that annoying person at least is an actual teetotaler, that gives them some credibility and makes their lecturing a little less annoying because at least they are walking the walk that they advocate that you walk. I'll be a little less annoyed but I'm still going to have a glass of wine with dinner! So, get yourself a solar setup similar to Ken's or lower your carbon footprint in some other big way and post some photo's. I'll probably still think you're a little annoying, but at least I'll have to admit that you're obviously sincere about this and willing to put your money where you mouth is.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

So.... that makes three of us here on this thread attempting to lead by example living primarily off solar (you, Mike and I)

You said you hate your solar. So your example right now is "don't do what I did".

Third Day... if living off-grid on a boat leads to the unique perspective you have, or vice-versa... not a big inducement, either.

Mike - about the only situation I can relate to. So, 1 for 3, as leadership goes.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Again, WHY does it matter so much to you what Ken's intentions were in installing all that solar? Our environment doesn't notice or care WHY someone has a smaller carbon footprint, just that they do it. I'm not nominating Ken for eco sainthood here, just pointing out that he actually did what you advocate for us all to do. I'd expect you to care a lot more about green actions and actual choices than green talk. Green choices actually make a difference, green talk is just another source of hot air.

Again, because I have said it more than a few times, the fix to pollution and sustainability issues will come from policy change. Private charity alone won't end poverty, individual action alone won't fix our pollution problems. Installing solar? positive move. Telling everyone in earshot that the green agenda is a scam? negative move. How many more people have now heard Ken rail against his solar setup, AGW and eco-stuff, vs those who have seen his roof?

As for being annoyed at you, it would make a HUGE difference to me if I had some evidence that you were actually living what you advocate the rest of us do and setting an example consistent with your stated views for the rest of us to follow.

Posting such stuff would just enable another avenue of attack, from others, if not from you. You guys would find fault with Ghandhi, if he didn't agree with you. No thanks. Good try tho'.

...get yourself a solar setup similar to Ken's or lower your carbon footprint in some other big way and post some photo's. I'll probably still think you're a little annoying, but at least I'll have to admit that you're obviously sincere about this and willing to put your money where you mouth is.

The decision to cut ties to property and be a liveaboard or longterm cruiser involves a number of inputs: wealth, health, spouse and family, occupation. They don't always come together; for those of you who've pulled it off, bravo. The ability to be off-grid ... about the same set.

Would I like to be out cruising? hell yes. Would I like to be a liveaboard or otherwise off-grid? yes also. But the stars haven't aligned, my ducks are not in a row. But I do the best I can, on both counts.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You said you hate your solar. So your example right now is "don't do what I did".

Third Day... if living off-grid on a boat leads to the unique perspective you have, or vice-versa... not a big inducement, either.

Mike - about the only situation I can relate to. So, 1 for 3, as leadership goes.

Go back and re-read my posts.... I never wrote "I hate my solar." Those are your words.

What I wrote, was that I never would have invested in solar if I'd known what I know today. The numbers don't work with or without any tax write off.

For the record, we invested to provide ourselves and our business tenants with free to inexpensive electrical power for future years, ten years following the installation.... So that we could continue to run a successful business well into our "golden twilight years." The numbers provided by the solar manufacturers and the solar installers seemed to make sense, but in reality.... They consisted of many broken promises and false projections.

So for solar to make any since for any future users and investors.... The industry promises and government promises need to make financial sense and the systems need to be able to deliver what they promise.... Not some BS annual check for $140.

This isn't the first time someone has expressed the view that since our motive for solar was economic, that somehow.... It doesn't count. Like somehow, only installations done by a GW believer are the only installations that count towards going green.

Solar and other energy technologies need to make financial sense in order for people to invest.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You said you hate your solar. So your example right now is "don't do what I did".

Third Day... if living off-grid on a boat leads to the unique perspective you have, or vice-versa... not a big inducement, either.

Mike - about the only situation I can relate to. So, 1 for 3, as leadership goes.

ROTFLMAO!!! As you've done time & time again, just another way of saying you are unable to relate to anyone other than those in your same club!

It's gonna be OK L-E, and if it makes you feel any better, I don't have any solar panels either. Ya see, it's not all that hard to be honest . . . maybe even . . . ummm . . . credible??

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Go back and re-read my posts.... I never wrote "I hate my solar." Those are your words.

What I wrote, was that I never would have invested in solar if I'd known what I know today. The numbers don't work with or without any tax write off.

For the record, we invested to provide ourselves and our business tenants with free to inexpensive electrical power for future years, ten years following the installation.... So that we could continue to run a successful business well into our "golden twilight years." The numbers provided by the solar manufacturers and the solar installers seemed to make sense, but in reality.... They consisted of many broken promises and false projections.

So for solar to make any since for any future users and investors.... The industry promises and government promises need to make financial sense and the systems need to be able to deliver what they promise.... Not some BS annual check for $140.

This isn't the first time some Greenik has expressed the view that since our motive for solar was economic, that somehow.... It doesn't count. Like somehow, only installations done by a GW believer are the only installations that count towards going green.

I never said it didn't count. Your inference. And I have zero problem that you installed it as a commercial proposition. It still counts, still a good idea, I think.

And, you're absolutely right that solar and other alternatives must make economic sense before widespread adoption will occur. (...surprised?)

btw, you did say "Solar power is a net loser, I would never do it again, nor would I recommend it to anyone". Not sounding like love...

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

btw, you did say "Solar power is a net loser, I would never do it again, nor would I recommend it to anyone". Not sounding like love...

You are correct and I stand by it.

I'm glad we can finally agree on something.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

This isn't the first time some Greenik has expressed the view that since our motive for solar was economic, that somehow.... It doesn't count. Like somehow, only installations done by a GW believer are the only installations that count towards going green.

As JT just pointed out, the environment doesn't care about your motives, only that you've reduced your carbon footprint (assuming you believe in that sorta thing). It seems to me that if you are sincere in your beliefs, you can either reduce your own footprint, become truly educated in the science and try to educate others, petition your govt. to provide cleaner sources of energy, or some combo of the three. We've seen such sincere examples throughout this thread. But for others, it's more of a self-centered effort to make themselves feel superior, to preach condescendingly to others who don't share the same beliefs, to perhaps relieve some festering guilt. This is the more cultish, intolerant, even religious side of CC advocacy that many find so objectionable, and one which only winds up undermining the credibility of the arguably more objective facts & science. It's merely an exercise in self-indulgence masquerading as genuine concern, and it's all too transparent.

[Reefmagnet]

Solar panels are not as "clean" as many would believe

Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ility-ranking/

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I attributed the politicization of the term "climate change" to Frank Luntz.

And you are adding to the politicization of the entire issue now by citing a speech George Bush gave 14 years ago, and a memo written several years prior to that. Politicization = polarization = non-consensus. Now how exactly does this help induce people to come together and act to offset your claimed risks from climate change? Or "global warming" if you prefer . . . .

[SV THIRD DAY]

So who started the "Denier" meme...