ADVERTISEMENT

Global Climate Changes

Every single piece of "data" all flows from the same manipulated data set I discussed here more than once. The data set where the climate "scientists" emails were hacked and exposed showing how hard they had to work to manipulate the data set to show a warning trend.

That was all created data. Everything that flows from it is knowingly using fake data in the same vein.

The real question is why. They know it's fake data, we know it's fake data, they know we know it's fake data. Yet they continue to push it. Is it for power? Prestige? To further a political cause? Or is it as simple as the money is too good to pass up?


And here's an important point on NOAA's Web site:

"A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends," the Web site says. "The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels."

In short, temperatures are rising.


So, to say that the CRU e-mails debunk the science supporting climate change leaves out the important point that CRU isn't the only organization looking at the issue. Indeed, there are reams of data that show temperatures are increasing and that greater concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are largely to blame. On this one, Inhofe is False.
 
Every single piece of "data" all flows from the same manipulated data set I discussed here more than once. The data set where the climate "scientists" emails were hacked and exposed showing how hard they had to work to manipulate the data set to show a warning trend.

That was all created data. Everything that flows from it is knowingly using fake data in the same vein.

The real question is why. They know it's fake data, we know it's fake data, they know we know it's fake data. Yet they continue to push it. Is it for power? Prestige? To further a political cause? Or is it as simple as the money is too good to pass up?

Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light but don't change scientific consensus on global warming.

. . . . . .We find such claims to be far wide of the mark. The e-mails (which have been made available by an unidentified individual here) do show a few scientists talking frankly among themselves — sometimes being rude, dismissive, insular, or even behaving like jerks. Whether they show anything beyond that is still in doubt. An investigation is being conducted by East Anglia University, and the head of CRU, Phil Jones, has “stepped aside” until it is completed. However, many of the e-mails that are being held up as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented by global-warming skeptics eager to find evidence of a conspiracy. And even if they showed what the critics claim, there remains ample evidence that the earth is getting warmer.


 
Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light but don't change scientific consensus on global warming.

I have no doubt it doesn't change "consensus". 1) there isn't a consensus because there is ample dispute 2) it showed them outright manipulating data and admitting short of said manipulation they couldn't produce a warning trend and 3) if you still adhere to the global warming notion, nothing will ever change your mind.

Anyone unfamiliar with that trove of emails should go read the actual content themselves. Not some opinion piece on them or a "what you need to know" story. Read the emails themselves.
 
I have no doubt it doesn't change "consensus". 1) there isn't a consensus because there is ample dispute 2) it showed them outright manipulating data and admitting short of said manipulation they couldn't produce a warning trend and 3) if you still adhere to the global warming notion, nothing will ever change your mind.

Anyone unfamiliar with that trove of emails should go read the actual content themselves. Not some opinion piece on them or a "what you need to know" story. Read the emails themselves.

Come one now, it’s politifact. And fact-check.org. They say “fact” in the name. You can take what they say as gospel rather than reading the source material. It’s not like they’re funded by bias inducing oil companies.
 
Just admit you don't want to know and go on about your lives. I keep seeing these posts from people talking about fake data... does it EVER occur to you that every single thing in your lives that you don't like you just call fake now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kingseve1
Just admit you don't want to know and go on about your lives. I keep seeing these posts from people talking about fake data... does it EVER occur to you that every single thing in your lives that you don't like you just call fake now?
Nearly everything the left says is fake/lies. They even hand out Pulitzers for fake "journalism". And when what we all knew was bullshit from the beginning is proven beyond a doubt, they still DGAF. Because followers like you believe anything they tell you and that's all that matters.
 
Nearly everything the left says is fake/lies. They even hand out Pulitzers for fake "journalism". And when what we all knew was bullshit from the beginning is proven beyond a doubt, they still DGAF. Because followers like you believe anything they tell you and that's all that matters.
Well I'm losing count on all the things you guys claim is fake or believe is a conspiracy. Elections. Weather. Fetterman has a body double. Jade Helm. Covid. Obama citizenship. Clintons murdering people. Child porn rings in pizza parlors. Seth Rich. Sandy Hook. Vince Foster. Joe Scarborough killed somebody. Crowdstrike. Windmills cause cancer. Shining a flashlight up your butt cures Covid. Bleach cures Covid. Animal drugs cure Covid. Thousands of Arabs celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey. Scalia was murdered. Ted Cruz's dad killed JFK..

But get every Scientific Institution on earth to tell you something all in unison from every country around the globe no matter the system of Government or ruling party... bunch of BS to you geniuses.
 
Well I'm losing count on all the things you guys claim is fake or believe is a conspiracy. Elections. Weather. Fetterman has a body double. Jade Helm. Covid. Obama citizenship. Clintons murdering people. Child porn rings in pizza parlors. Seth Rich. Sandy Hook. Vince Foster. Joe Scarborough killed somebody. Crowdstrike. Windmills cause cancer. Shining a flashlight up your butt cures Covid. Bleach cures Covid. Animal drugs cure Covid. Thousands of Arabs celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey. Scalia was murdered. Ted Cruz's dad killed JFK..

But get every Scientific Institution on earth to tell you something all in unison from every country around the globe no matter the system of Government or ruling party... bunch of BS to you geniuses.
I'll check back in 4 years, or was it 3? You know, when you claim everything will be extinct because of Global Warming, or should I say Climate Change? LOL, maybe they'll give you a Pulitzer in 2026.
 
Well there's a difference, you see. I say right up front my opinion is outside mainstream science and I point to the fact that posters like Defense are more where the consensus amongst scientists is. I don't say Defense is fake news and I don't say folks that have a more conservative view of Climate Change are all fake. I try to argue that the trends are all worse than predicted and the IPCC reports have been understated due to politics. Not fake, not a conspiracy, just more conservative than I believe the evidence and trends support.

So there's room for actual discussion, not a complete abandonment of all evidence in favor of living in a make-believe world where everyone that disagrees with me is a pedophile and that any evidence that doesn't support my opinion is a hoax or that my ballot is irrelevant because my Republican state decided to give it to a Democrat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kingseve1


bjorn Lomborg interview on pbd podcast. It's worth a listen if you want to be educated on the economics of climate change AND climate policy.
 
Congratulations. The 6 month ensemble arctic forecast by the US Naval Post Graduate School in Monterrey, CA. is out and there will not be an ice free arctic this year. So while miserable and with anomalies all over the place and continued species decline and extinction, at least we will be around for another year or so.

6-month Ensemble Forecasts

About the Regional Arctic System Model (RASM)​


The Regional Arctic System Model (RASM) has been developed to advance capability in simulating critical physical processes, feedbacks and their impact on the Arctic climate system and to reduce uncertainty in its prediction. RASM is a limited-area, fully coupled ice-ocean-atmosphere-land model that uses the Community Earth System Model (CESM) framework. It includes the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model, the LANL Parallel Ocean Program (POP) and Community Ice Model (CICE) and the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) land hydrology model. In addition, a streamflow routing (RVIC) model was recently implemented in RASM to transport the freshwater flux from the land surface to the Arctic Ocean. Finally, marine biogeochemistry components are currently being implemented in the ocean and sea ice components to expand RASM capability into Arctic ecosystem studies. The model domain is configured at horizontal resolution of 1/12° (or ~9km) for the ice-ocean and 50 km for the atmosphere-land model components. It covers the entire Northern Hemisphere marine cryosphere, terrestrial drainage to the Arctic Ocean and its major inflow and outflow pathways, with optimal extension into the North Pacific / Atlantic to model the passage of cyclones into the Arctic. All RASM components are coupled at high frequency to realistically represent interactions among model components at inertial and longer time scales.

Arctic sea ice is a sensitive indicator of the state of Arctic climate and its polar amplification. However, the causes of Arctic ice melt and its rate are not fully understood. Global climate models (GCMs) vary widely in their predictions of warming and the rate of Arctic ice melt, suggesting it may take anywhere from a couple of decades to more than a century to melt most of the summer sea ice cover. The multi- model average forecast based on results from the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC-AR4) predicts a 50% reduction of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean by the end of this century. Unfortunately, the majority of those models have significant limitations in their representation of past and present sea ice variability in the Arctic. Some of the critical limitations include: sea ice thickness distribution, deformation, variability and export, air-ice-sea interactions, northward oceanic/atmospheric heat convergence, and freshwater export. This proposal intends to target potential causes of those limitations associated with resolution and sophistication of ocean-atmosphere boundary layers and their interaction with and without the sea ice cover. The recently developed high-resolution Regional Arctic System Model (RASM) will be used as a tool for numerical simulation and synthesis with in-situ and satellite observations to investigate the critical physical feedback processes and interactions between the atmosphere, ocean, and land under a diminishing sea ice cover.
 
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday allowed lawsuits brought by municipalities seeking to hold energy companies accountable for climate change to move forward in a loss for business interests.

The court turned away oil company appeals in five cases involving claims brought by cities and municipalities in Colorado, Maryland, California, Hawaii and Rhode Island as part of efforts to hold businesses accountable for the effects of climate change.



The relatively narrow legal issue is whether the lawsuits should be heard in state court instead of federal court. Litigants care because of the widely held view that plaintiffs have better chances of winning damage awards in state courts.

"Big Oil companies have been desperate to avoid trials in state courts, where they will be forced to defend their climate lies in front of juries, and today the Supreme Court declined to bail them out," said Richard Wiles, the president of the Center for Climate Integrity, an environmental group.

Business groups expressed disappointment, with Phil Goldberg, a lawyer with the National Association of Manufacturers' legal arm, saying climate issues should be dealt with at the national or international levels.

"The challenge of our time is developing technologies and public policies so that the world can produce and use energy in ways that are affordable for people and sustainable for the planet. It should not be figuring out how to creatively plead lawsuits that seek to monetize climate change and provide no solutions," he said.




Climate change effects force more Americans to move


The Biden administration urged the court not to hear the case, and in a change to the legal position taken by the Trump administration, it said the lawsuit and others like it should be heard in state courts.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in the brief order that he would have taken up one of the cases. Justice Samuel Alito did not participate, most likely because he owns stock in oil companies.

In all five cases, BP, Chevron, Shell and other companies had lost in lower courts.
The lawsuits say the municipalities have been harmed by the effects of climate change caused by carbon emissions that the oil companies are heavily responsible for.
In an earlier case, the Supreme Court in 2021 ruled in favor of oil companies on a procedural issue in a similar lawsuit brought by the city of Baltimore.
On a separate legal issue, the court in a major ruling last year limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to address climate change under a provision of the Clean Air Act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deeeefense
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday allowed lawsuits brought by municipalities seeking to hold energy companies accountable for climate change to move forward in a loss for business interests.

The court turned away oil company appeals in five cases involving claims brought by cities and municipalities in Colorado, Maryland, California, Hawaii and Rhode Island as part of efforts to hold businesses accountable for the effects of climate change.



The relatively narrow legal issue is whether the lawsuits should be heard in state court instead of federal court. Litigants care because of the widely held view that plaintiffs have better chances of winning damage awards in state courts.

"Big Oil companies have been desperate to avoid trials in state courts, where they will be forced to defend their climate lies in front of juries, and today the Supreme Court declined to bail them out," said Richard Wiles, the president of the Center for Climate Integrity, an environmental group.

Business groups expressed disappointment, with Phil Goldberg, a lawyer with the National Association of Manufacturers' legal arm, saying climate issues should be dealt with at the national or international levels.

"The challenge of our time is developing technologies and public policies so that the world can produce and use energy in ways that are affordable for people and sustainable for the planet. It should not be figuring out how to creatively plead lawsuits that seek to monetize climate change and provide no solutions," he said.




Climate change effects force more Americans to move


The Biden administration urged the court not to hear the case, and in a change to the legal position taken by the Trump administration, it said the lawsuit and others like it should be heard in state courts.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in the brief order that he would have taken up one of the cases. Justice Samuel Alito did not participate, most likely because he owns stock in oil companies.

In all five cases, BP, Chevron, Shell and other companies had lost in lower courts.
The lawsuits say the municipalities have been harmed by the effects of climate change caused by carbon emissions that the oil companies are heavily responsible for.
In an earlier case, the Supreme Court in 2021 ruled in favor of oil companies on a procedural issue in a similar lawsuit brought by the city of Baltimore.
On a separate legal issue, the court in a major ruling last year limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to address climate change under a provision of the Clean Air Act.
All this means is that they have no precedent to believe there is or is not a global change due to excess carbon created by man. They would have to hear all cases where the lower courts rule in favor of the plaintiffs. So basically this means absolutely nothing until they hear enough cases and can start to define precedent for future cases. Good try though.
 
All this means is that they have no precedent to believe there is or is not a global change due to excess carbon created by man. They would have to hear all cases where the lower courts rule in favor of the plaintiffs. So basically this means absolutely nothing until they hear enough cases and can start to define precedent for future cases. Good try though.
The article seems to suggest the cases would not have juries in federal courts. The distinction is that a city jury comes from that city and a federal jury comes from the district, which canvasses a greater area. Defendants generally tend to like federal court, because there is more structure and less surprise, and probably a better judge to argue summary judgment before. The city plaintiffs probably don’t want jurors from the surrounding counties. Now, if you sue the city police force, the city will probably want a federal court, as well.

These cases are at the earliest stages. Filed in state court, removed to federal court and then remanded to state court. That remand was the only issue on appeal. The Supreme Court issued nothing of substance. It only permitted to stand the circuit court of appeal’s decision that removal was improper.

So, it goes back to the state courts to be litigated from the very beginning. Looking at the case, some of the removal bases claimed may have avoided a jury (i.e. Bankruptcy). Many attorneys are feeding off of this case.

One has to wonder if the defendants can claim offsets for the alleged harm. The city and its inhabitants used all of the products the defendants created for years and years to their benefit, survival, and enjoyment. If fossil fuels cause warming, look in the mirror for the reason for that warming.

These cases serve one purpose: destroy an industry that is as responsible as any for the modern way of life.

Now that removal failed, watch for motions to change venue. Juries from the city that are claiming harm that costs those jurors would appear to be a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freetaxreturn
The article seems to suggest the cases would not have juries in federal courts. The distinction is that a city jury comes from that city and a federal jury comes from the district, which canvasses a greater area. Defendants generally tend to like federal court, because there is more structure and less surprise, and probably a better judge to argue summary judgment before. The city plaintiffs probably don’t want jurors from the surrounding counties. Now, if you sue the city police force, the city will probably want a federal court, as well.

These cases are at the earliest stages. Filed in state court, removed to federal court and then remanded to state court. That remand was the only issue on appeal. The Supreme Court issued nothing of substance. It only permitted to stand the circuit court of appeal’s decision that removal was improper.

So, it goes back to the state courts to be litigated from the very beginning. Looking at the case, some of the removal bases claimed may have avoided a jury (i.e. Bankruptcy). Many attorneys are feeding off of this case.

One has to wonder if the defendants can claim offsets for the alleged harm. The city and its inhabitants used all of the products the defendants created for years and years to their benefit, survival, and enjoyment. If fossil fuels cause warming, look in the mirror for the reason for that warming.

These cases serve one purpose: destroy an industry that is as responsible as any for the modern way of life.

Now that removal failed, watch for motions to change venue. Juries from the city that are claiming harm that costs those jurors would appear to be a problem.
I would still see a massive number of appeals that would have to get processed through, in some cases up through state or federal supreme courts to set precedent. The idea of prosecuting private companies for civil complaints for intangible impacts (meaning not fundamentally proven beyond a doubt) is going to be a hard sell up and would likely set precedent that is going to be hard to overturn until there is more proof than just what people think may happen in the future.
 
I would still see a massive number of appeals that would have to get processed through, in some cases up through state or federal supreme courts to set precedent. The idea of prosecuting private companies for civil complaints for intangible impacts (meaning not fundamentally proven beyond a doubt) is going to be a hard sell up and would likely set precedent that is going to be hard to overturn until there is more proof than just what people think may happen in the future.
Agreed. Unfortunately, some environmental whore of an “expert” will give causation opinion testimony. Whether that is successfully subjected to a Daubert motion is another question.
 
The fossil fuel industry benefits from subsidies of $11m every minute, according to analysis by the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF found the production and burning of coal, oil and gas was subsidised by $5.9tn in 2020, with not a single country pricing all its fuels sufficiently to reflect their full supply and environmental costs. Experts said the subsidies were “adding fuel to the fire” of the climate crisis, at a time when rapid reductions in carbon emissions were urgently needed.




Explicit subsidies that cut fuel prices accounted for 8% of the total and tax breaks another 6%. The biggest factors were failing to make polluters pay for the deaths and poor health caused by air pollution (42%) and for the heatwaves and other impacts of global heating (29%).
Setting fossil fuel prices that reflect their true cost would cut global CO2 emissions by over a third, the IMF analysts said. This would be a big step towards meeting the internationally agreed 1.5C target. Keeping this target within reach is a key goal of the UN Cop26 climate summit in November.
Agreeing rules for carbon markets, which enable the proper pricing of pollution, is another Cop26 goal. “Fossil fuel price reform could not be timelier,” the IMF researchers said. The ending of fossil fuel subsidies would also prevent nearly a million deaths a year from dirty air and raise trillions of dollars for governments, they said.

“There would be enormous benefits from reform, so there’s an enormous amount at stake,” said Ian Parry, the lead author of the IMF report. “Some countries are reluctant to raise energy prices because they think it will harm the poor. But holding down fossil fuel prices is a highly inefficient way to help the poor, because most of the benefits accrue to wealthier households. It would be better to target resources towards helping poor and vulnerable people directly.”
With 50 countries committed to net zero emissions by mid-century and more than 60 carbon pricing schemes around the world, there are some encouraging signs, Parry said: “But we’re still just scratching the surface really, and there’s an awful long way to go.”
The G20 agreed in 2009 to phase out “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies and in 2016, the G7 set a deadline of 2025, but little progress has been made. In July, a report showed that the G20 countries had subsidised fossil fuels by trillions of dollars since 2015, the year the Paris climate deal was reached.
“To stabilise global temperatures we must urgently move away from fossil fuels instead of adding fuel to the fire,” said Mike Coffin, senior analyst at the thinktank Carbon Tracker. “It’s critical that governments stop propping up an industry that is in decline, and look to accelerate the low-carbon energy transition, and our future, instead.

“As host of Cop26, the UK government could play an important global leadership role by ending all subsidies for fossil fuels, as well as halting new North Sea licensing rounds,” he said. The International Energy Agency (IEA) said in May that the development of new oil and gas fields must stop this year to meet climate goals.
The comprehensive IMF report found that prices were at least 50% below their true costs for 99% of coal, 52% of diesel and 47% of natural gas in 2020. Five countries were responsible for two-thirds of the subsidies: China, the US, Russia, India and Japan. Without action, subsidies will rise to $6.4tn in 2025, the IMF said.
Proper pricing for fossil fuels would cut emissions by, for example, encouraging electricity generators to switch from coal to renewable energy and making electric cars an even cheaper option for motorists. International cooperation is important, Parry said, to allay fears that countries could lose competitiveness if their fossil fuel prices were higher.
“The IMF report is a sobering reading, pointing to one of the major defects of the global economy,” said Maria Pastukhova, at the thinktank e3g. “The IEA’s net-zero roadmap projects that $5tn is necessary by 2030 to put the world on the pathway to a climate-safe world. It is maddening to realise the much-needed change could start happening now, if not for governments’ entanglement with the fossil fuels industry in so many major economies.”

“Fossil fuel subsidies have been a major stumbling block in the G20 process for years,” she said. “Now all eyes are on the G20 leaders’ summit in late October.”
Ipek Gençsü, at the Overseas Development Institute, said: “[Subsidy reform] requires support for vulnerable consumers who will be impacted by rising costs, as well for workers in industries which simply have to shut down. It also requires information campaigns, showing how the savings will be redistributed to society in the form of healthcare, education and other social services. Many people oppose subsidy reform because they see it solely as governments taking something away, and not giving back.”
The G20 countries emit almost 80% of global greenhouse gases. More than 600 global companies in the We Mean Business coalition, including Unilever, Ikea, Aviva, Siemens and Volvo Cars, recently urged G20 leaders to end fossil fuel subsidies by 2025.
 
“Existential threats” permit politicians and politicals to pick the winners and the losers. Sometimes, surprisingly, the winners turn out to be the people supporting the politicians. What a repeated coincidence that seems to always be.

What if the objective was to make the US energy independent and provide the most affordable energy to the populace? We would not have brownouts or shortages. Start from that objective and then balance in environmental concerns.
 
Just dropping in to note that Europe is going through a highly unusual heat wave at the moment, in fact, a town in Spain last week set an all time record high for that date . . . not for the town, or the country, but for the entire continent.

That being said, anyone changed their minds after 35 pages?
 
“Existential threats” permit politicians and politicals to pick the winners and the losers. Sometimes, surprisingly, the winners turn out to be the people supporting the politicians. What a repeated coincidence that seems to always be.

What if the objective was to make the US energy independent and provide the most affordable energy to the populace? We would not have brownouts or shortages. Start from that objective and then balance in environmental concerns.
The Earth or environment should come first. Not the cheapest solution.
 
Just dropping in to note that Europe is going through a highly unusual heat wave at the moment, in fact, a town in Spain last week set an all time record high for that date . . . not for the town, or the country, but for the entire continent.

That being said, anyone changed their minds after 35 pages?
Is that near where the Obamas and Speilberg flew in on their private jets to catch a Springsteen concert in Spain?
 
The Earth or environment should come first. Not the cheapest solution.
We disagree. Making affordable energy available to more people at an affordable rate is the most humanitarian thing we can do. It is a real first world complaint to say affordable energy is not the priority. More lives will be saved by bringing energy to the impoverished around the world. Climate change first world countries have cheated at their own stupid plans, all while shackling third world countries. Sitting in the USA telling starving people in the world that cheap energy is wrong is pretty weak, IMO.
 
We disagree. Making affordable energy available to more people at an affordable rate is the most humanitarian thing we can do. It is a real first world complaint to say affordable energy is not the priority. More lives will be saved by bringing energy to the impoverished around the world. Climate change first world countries have cheated at their own stupid plans, all while shackling third world countries. Sitting in the USA telling starving people in the world that cheap energy is wrong is pretty weak, IMO.
Just like your diet right? Fast food and processed chips washed down with soda. Hey it’s cheap.
 
We disagree. Making affordable energy available to more people at an affordable rate is the most humanitarian thing we can do. It is a real first world complaint to say affordable energy is not the priority. More lives will be saved by bringing energy to the impoverished around the world. Climate change first world countries have cheated at their own stupid plans, all while shackling third world countries. Sitting in the USA telling starving people in the world that cheap energy is wrong is pretty weak, IMO.
The problem with your argument is you are assuming, erroneously that fossil fuel is lowest cost energy source which is false. Solar and wind are much less expensive than fossil notwithstanding the costs associated with the environmental impact on human health, but you seem to always be opposed to those sources. I favor an "all of the above" approach and let utilities and governments choose the lowest cost methods that make sense for them. Industrialized countries should, and for the most part are transitioning to cleaner more efficient and lower cost sources. Even China the worst offender spends over $100 Billion a year on alt energy.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Kingseve1
The problem with your argument is you are assuming, erroneously that fossil fuel is lowest cost energy source which is false. Solar and wind are much less expensive than fossil notwithstanding the costs associated with the environmental impact on human health, but you seem to always be opposed to those sources. I favor an "all of the above" approach and let utilities and governments choose the lowest cost methods that make sense for them. Industrialized countries should, and for the most part are transitioning to cleaner more efficient and lower cost sources. Even China the worst offender spends over $100 Billion a year on alt energy.

False. Where did I assume that? Maybe you assumed that.

China also diversifies its sources of energy. Which is smart.
 
The problem with your argument is you are assuming, erroneously that fossil fuel is lowest cost energy source which is false. Solar and wind are much less expensive than fossil notwithstanding the costs associated with the environmental impact on human health, but you seem to always be opposed to those sources. I favor an "all of the above" approach and let utilities and governments choose the lowest cost methods that make sense for them. Industrialized countries should, and for the most part are transitioning to cleaner more efficient and lower cost sources. Even China the worst offender spends over $100 Billion a year on alt energy.


Well, you first have to believe that climate change is a big problem, which seemingly most of the posters on this site utterly reject (maybe I am wrong about this, I hope so given the mountains of data that says otherwise), so while you are pretty much correct in your statements above, since global warming or whatever you want to call it is a non issue to them, anything proposed to address the issue will be opposed, especially if it costs $1 more out of someone's pocket in the short run.

Or they will argue until they are blue in the face with all the allegedly insurmountable obstacles to making renewable energy (and I include nuclear in this) work at scale. So I just try to avoid the arguments with those who have taken a position that is immovable. If nothing else, keeps my blood pressure down.

Like most tough subjects, it is a lot easier to discuss this issue in person than on these discussion boards, where it quickly seems to turn to pointless name calling, like we are all 12 year olds.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT