Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Wow. 3 pages of intellectual laziness, dishonesty, and irrelevance.



This is a giant turd.

Most of us pay taxes and have one current account. If you pay X in taxes from that account, and your great uncle left you X in his will, which you deposited in your account... would someone lose their **** and accuse you of "propaganda, distortions and lies" if you said "my taxes were 100% paid by my inheritance"? really?

Yet you guys riff on this irrelevant, tiny point for 3 pages. That right there makes it prety clear how intellectually lazy and dishonest many of you are being about AGW, and about alternative/renewable power in general.



More of the same. Twist, then attack. btw, I happen to know what equipment you'd find in a low power community radio station, and what it would take to power them. About the equivalent of a few hair-dryers. Easy to achieve with a few panels and a battery-bank. Another ******** point bites the dust.



everyone knows the baseline thing, Stu... But that's not the claim. The claim is that the X units of power provided by the additional renewables equals 100% of the power required by the transit system. Taxes/inheritance thing again.



Still a stupid point. Let it go, Stu, move on....



... ok, not gonna happen.



Not what's being claimed, Ken. Stupid point no matter who's made it...

But I guess it seems fun. Anyone can play...



It's a pile-on!



Whoops, Gord drives the final nail into the stupid argument. Time for a fast deke to conspiracy-land...





I sure hope the last three pages have had entertainment value, because it was devoid of information or logic. I fear it's brought the global IQ down by almost a point. Global dumbing.

Heh. Illuminating post. Why do so many of your posts bring this image to mind??

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

It's not a local community radio station. It's a major FM radio station called "The River" 92.5 covering all of Eastern Massachusetts. The solar panels on their roof wouldn't even be sufficient to keep the lights on in the lobby.

Them claiming to be 100% solar powered is just marketing B.S.

Can you show where they're claiming to be "100% solar-powered"?

There's a full "green" audit here, but I know the sneering attitude here regarding ANYTHING green (Reefmagnet, this is a clear demo of how anti-AGW is often simply anti-green, period), so I don't expect it to persuade you.

Does your product require heat/electricity to produce? How much compared to the heat/electricity of just the building? What are your heat/electric sources? Are any of them renewable?

- The tower sends out the WXRV signal with the use of electric power. the River is looking into ways to offset some of that power with a wind turbine.
- The River heats with oil, (but switching to Bioheat this fall). A portion of the River’s electricity at the station is generated by a solar PV system on the roof of the station.

Anyway... they are a commercial station, and yes green is their marketing angle... so yes there's hype in there. Agreed. Is it any worse than an urban "Country" station pretending to be all shucks jes folks from their 26th floor downtown studio? Would you hate on all country stations and rural people in general because of this? (Answer - no, unless you already hate country stations to start with, right?)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Heh. Illuminating post. Why do so many of your posts bring this image to mind??

I love Daffy Duck so, thanks. Seriously, do you think there was anything useful, informative, persuasive in that whole topic? Is it not kind of unflattering to the anti-AGW/anti-green mindset?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

In a nearby town of Newburyport, there's a giant windmill right smack near the middle of the town standing still most of the time due to lack of wind ...

In 2008, Mark Richey installed a 292-foot turbine at his business, Mark Richey Woodworking. They received a Large Onsite Renewables Initiative (LORI) grant ($474,340) through the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust that partially paid for the installation of the 600 KW wind turbine generator. I believe that the turbine provides about 60% of the electricity the shop uses.

It’s currently (Jan 2/16 - 1:15 PM) generating 212.55 kw
➥ Our Facility: Wind Turbine Real-Time Display

[fryewe]

...I know the sneering attitude here regarding ANYTHING green...

L-E, you seem to be a bit bitter because your weak arguments, which consist mainly of appeals to authority and arm waving, and exaggerations like the quote above, aren't effective. I would think, rather than joust with the windmill (pun intended), that you'd try modifying your argument.

I'd wager than many of us who aren't committed to an agenda that would satisfy you have systems and daily practices that limit our fuel use or electrical use...perhaps motivated by different things than you...and many of us who have or had careers on the seas are especially happy that pollution control has had a significant positive effect in the First World (not so much in the Third). Green doesn't mean "bad"; but it also doesn't automatically mean "good." Merit is important.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

L-E, you seem to be a bit bitter because your weak arguments, which consist mainly of appeals to authority and arm waving, and exaggerations like the quote above, aren't effective. I would think, rather than joust with the windmill (pun intended), that you'd try modifying your argument.

Hey that was just an amusing diversion. My main argument remains - no-one has seriously dented the scientific validity of the IPCC findings and that there is indeed consensus around their findings.

[Appeal to the elephant in the room, basically.]

If no-one can topple that, then all the other anti-AGW arguments are built on quicksand. These are the weak arguments.

I'm bitter because such an important issue is successfully mired in manufactured debate.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by GordMay

In 2008, Mark Richey installed a 292-foot turbine at his business, Mark Richey Woodworking. They received a Large Onsite Renewables Initiative (LORI) grant ($474,340) through the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust that partially paid for the installation of the 600 KW wind turbine generator. I believe that the turbine provides about 60% of the electricity the shop uses.

It’s currently (Jan 2/16 - 1:15 PM) generating 212.55 kw
➥ Our Facility: Wind Turbine Real-Time Display

At $0.10 per KWhr, that's a savings for the company of $21 an hour, or $500 a day...and a "savings" of a bit over 100Kg per hour of carbon dioxide over CNG production or about 2500Kg per day. Does this mean that the price of CO2 should be about $0.20 per Kg? Is this consistent with the price being put on carbon in trading schemes?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

I'd wager than many of us who aren't committed to an agenda that would satisfy you have systems and daily practices that limit our fuel use or electrical use...perhaps motivated by different things than you...and many of us who have or had careers on the seas are especially happy that pollution control has had a significant positive effect in the First World (not so much in the Third). Green doesn't mean "bad"; but it also doesn't automatically mean "good." Merit is important.

Coming back to this because it's important. Indeed - cruising and living on a boat means careful budgeting of energy, and a closer, better understanding of the environment.

So I would have thought that it would make us more receptive to the 'green' message. However, despite already being practitioners, it seems that personal politics is stronger and many here are apparently predisposed to despise the green movement, probably because of the left wing's already staking it out as their high ground.

Unfortunate because of the literal meaning of 'conservative', but there's not much 'conserve' in today's conservative.

Anyway - it leaves us with a group of practicing greenies opposed to green policies. The world's environmental problems won't be eliminated by voluntary individual action; policy change and focussed effort is required.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by fryewe

... Does this mean that the price of CO2 should be about $0.20 per Kg? Is this consistent with the price being put on carbon in trading schemes?

I don't favour trading schemes - but I'm no economics expert.
However:
BC’s carbon tax, launched on July 1, 2008, with a rate of $10 per ton CO2. It increased by $5 per ton each year through July 2012, when it reached $30 per ton.
Since 1 Ton = 907.185 kg, the BC Carbon Tax is about 3.3 cents per kg.

The province’s per-capita combustion of motor fuels and other petroleum diminished by 15 percentage points in the first four years of the tax shift; 10 full points more than in Canada overall.

[fryewe]

A 100% consensus of scientists of all types agree and all peer reviewed papers acknowledge that oxygen causes rust...(image stolen off Twitter)

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

A 100% consensus of scientists of all types agree and all peer reviewed papers acknowledge that oxygen causes rust...(image stolen off Twitter)

Attachment 116045

The result of breathing increased partial pressures of oxygen is hyperoxia, an excess of oxygen in body tissues. The body is affected in different ways depending on the type of exposure. Central nervous system toxicity is caused by short exposure to high partial pressures of oxygen at greater than atmospheric pressure.

Everything has optimal limits.


I would suggest those limits for CO2 that natural cycles keep in place over the past 800,000 would be about right: 180 to 300 ppm.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by fryewe

A 100% consensus of scientists of all types agree and all peer reviewed papers acknowledge that oxygen causes rust...

I might have agreed with you before this thread got rocking', but now I'm not so sure. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone deny that oxidation even exists, and who points to a "scientist" who disputes redox chemistry.

... I think.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Everything has optimal limits.

And maxima and minima, including senses of humo(u)r.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I might have agreed with you before this thread got rocking', but now I'm not so sure. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone deny that oxidation even exists, and who points to a "scientist" who disputes redox chemistry.

... I think.

[fryewe]

From a column by Stephen Moore, in support of the OP by Kenomac...

The folks at the Institute for Energy Research recently published a study showing three data points: first, the government's best estimate of how much oil we had in America 50 years ago. The second was how much U.S. oil has been drilled out of the ground since then. And the third is how many reserves there are now. Today we have twice as many reserves as we had in 1950. And we have already produced almost 10 times more oil than the government told us we had back then.

Technology and innovation account for the constant upping the amount of "finite" oil we can produce. We discover new sources of oil much faster than we deplete the known amount of reserves, and so, for all practical purposes, oil and natural gas supplies are nearly inexhaustible. Fracking is the latest game-changer and the access it gives us to shale oil and gas resources has virtually doubled over night. And this technology boom in drilling is just getting started.

My point is how absurd it is for Americans to blindly trust any "scientific consensus" on any of these natural resource or environmental issues. The credibility of the alarmists is just shot. In 1980, hundreds of the top scientists in the United States issued a report called The Global 2000 Report to the President, which was a primal scream that in every way life on earth would be worse by 2000 because the world would run out of oil, gas, food, farmland and so on.

Does this mean the future becomes scarier for AGW adherents because there is so much more cheap oil and gas to burn?

When the 10 year anniversary of Al Gore's ten-years-to-catastrophe passes in 25 January this year, do you think he will say "I was wrong?" If the science, which is "settled," missed the mark on this prediction, and Al had the support of the broad community of "climate scientists" when he made his prediction, do you think that should diminish the credibility of their science? Their opinions?