extreme weather forecast

You are a collection of contradictions.

an oxymoron

a trans-conservative.




aaaaaah

Being a trans conservative isn't an oxymoron. Read up on the Log Cabin Republicans if you think otherwise.

Republicans who don't believe that civil liberties can be served without government intervention are not conservatives. They're RINOs. It's RINOs who support government programs, and it's RINOs who expect the state to forbid LGBT policies. Actual conservatives do not care the sort of kink you do in your own home, your own town, and even your own church.

As for extreme weather...

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/08/01/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-has-speech-canceled-saying-climate-change-is-not-crisis/
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/

1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.

Climate science is not science. It's politics dressed up as science.


This is real science.

Daily signal
Owned by the Heritage foundations
Whos memebers include a great deal many big oil tycoons.

Cool
Lets beleive them!

Friends of Science (FoS) is a non-profit advocacy organization based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The organization rejects the established scientific consensus that humans are largely responsible for the currently observed global warming. Rather, they propose that "the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change," not human activity. They argued against the Kyoto Protocol.[1] The society was founded in 2002 and launched its website in October of that year.[2][3] They are largely funded by the fossil fuel industry.[4][5]

If tobacoo funded scientists posted an articlr and open letter stating smoking tobacco doesnt cause cancer- should we believe them?


If covid scientists posted a lwtter stating the benefits of masks and vaccines - should we believe them?




If jackB tells you 99.9% of scientists believe the earth is round ball - should you beleive him?

If tobacoo funded scientists posted an articlr and open letter stating smoking tobacco doesnt cause cancer- should we believe them?


If covid scientists posted a lwtter stating the benefits of masks and vaccines - should we believe them?

Were those "covid scientists" funded by a source that had a financial imperative in promoting masks and vaccines against good reason? If not, and since virtually all experienced scientific researchers specializing in epidemiology and communicable diseases recommended these, then, yes, I would believe them. If it were, say, a group of nuclear physicists making the recommendation I would seek further advice from others with more relevant expertise.

In your comparison with tobacco, you neglect to mention that a significant number of relevantly-trained scientists did not agree with the ones downplaying the risks of tobacco. As the nature of how Covid-19 spread and how it affected its victims became clearer not many scientists disagreed with the mask and vaccine recommendations. Very, very few who actually were virologists or epidemiologists disagreed.

If jackB tells you 99.9% of scientists believe the earth is round ball - should you beleive him?

That number seems a little low but generally in the ballpark, so, yes.

If jackB tells you 99.9% of scientists believe the earth is round ball - should you beleive him?

You're talking about the fallacy of consensus.

If 99.9% of the people in the world supposedly wanted you to jump off a bridge and have fun, should you do it? Well, granted, that sort of consensus would be fucking demoralizing, but the point is, NO, you should actually distrust an alleged consensus, and even a real consensus. Two heads are better than one because they give each other second opinions. Because you disagree, I can think through ideas and figure out better ones. On the other hand, two people who agree had better be lovers, because if you're not getting laid for being agreeable, it's pretty tiresome. A committee of people who think exactly the same way, by extension is completely monstrous. Let's shout down any new ideas. You invented fire?!? Mmmm, the committee doesn't like that. Fire is hot! We want to freeze for another couple of centuries.



Consensus is the antithesis of science. Science is about the study of new ideas. The repeated testing, to make sure you understand things right. The submission of these new ideas, which lead to inventions and innovations. And yes, occasionally some very destructive weapons. Consensus by contrast is unhelpful groupthink. It is a bunch of bureaucrats sitting in a room telling people instead of working on building cleaner cars and houses, "Sorry, we're sure that cars and stoves damage the environment so you should walk everywhere, and live in an ice-cold house." Yeah, no. You literally just told me that 99% of people think I should freeze to death.

Friends of Science (FoS) is a non-profit advocacy organization based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The organization rejects the established scientific consensus that humans are largely responsible for the currently observed global warming. Rather, they propose that "the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change," not human activity. They argued against the Kyoto Protocol. The society was founded in 2002 and launched its website in October of that year. They are largely funded by the fossil fuel industry.

Even worse. There are climate scientists (and I use that term loosely), who legit want to make artificial clouds because the sun is hot. Obviously, they've never watched this movie.



In this movie, because of climate hysteria, they spread a chemical known as CW-7, a cooling gas... which sorta kinda works a little too well.

You fail to realise the point (big surprise!)

Not in the agreement of c9nsensus, but the point being you, a sucker for big oil, beleiving a finaicially motivated propogandized report touting the amazingness of big oil.

You fail to realise the point (big surprise!)

Not in the agreement of c9nsensus, but the point being you, a sucker for big oil, beleiving a finaicially motivated propogandized report touting the amazingness of big oil.

If you don't like oil, stop using the internet, anything made from plastics, automobiles, electricity, most clothing products, almost every modern convenience you currently use, as they directly use oil to function, are a byproduct of oil, are made from components that are made from or byproduct of oil, or manufactured using equipment that requires oil to function.

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 08, 2023, 05:56:38 AM

You fail to realise the point (big surprise!)

Not in the agreement of c9nsensus, but the point being you, a sucker for big oil, beleiving a finaicially motivated propogandized report touting the amazingness of big oil.

If you don't like oil, stop using the internet, anything made from plastics, automobiles, electricity, most clothing products, almost every modern convenience you currently use, as they directly use oil to function, are a byproduct of oil, are made from components that are made from or byproduct of oil, or manufactured using equipment that requires oil to function.

that's a nonsense statment.
calling greenpeace hypocrits for using gas power boats.

it's called a MONOPOLY.

funny how the people who ownt he MONPOLOY just really want to keep their MONOPOLY for all those wonderful things you mentioned.

the manufacturers will find a new product.
or they'll keep using plastics but reduce oil consumption in other industries - liek burning for transportation.


be less nonsense.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on August 08, 2023, 09:06:23 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 08, 2023, 05:56:38 AM

You fail to realise the point (big surprise!)

Not in the agreement of c9nsensus, but the point being you, a sucker for big oil, beleiving a finaicially motivated propogandized report touting the amazingness of big oil.

If you don't like oil, stop using the internet, anything made from plastics, automobiles, electricity, most clothing products, almost every modern convenience you currently use, as they directly use oil to function, are a byproduct of oil, are made from components that are made from or byproduct of oil, or manufactured using equipment that requires oil to function.

that's a nonsense statment.
calling greenpeace hypocrits for using gas power boats.

it's called a MONOPOLY.

funny how the people who ownt he MONPOLOY just really want to keep their MONOPOLY for all those wonderful things you mentioned.

the manufacturers will find a new product.
or they'll keep using plastics but reduce oil consumption in other industries - liek burning for transportation.


be less nonsense.

There is nothing nonsensical about it. 

Protesting against oil while doing nothing to actually develop working alternatives or using available environmentally friendly solutions all the while using products made from oil and that consume oil makes you a hypocrite.

It isn't a monopoly.

Develop an alternative and market it.

If it fails on the market, it isn't a working alternative.

Protesting against oil while doing nothing to actually develop working alternatives or using available environmentally friendly solutions all the while using products made from oil and that consume oil makes you a hypocrite.

Are they protesting it, or just calling out lies by an industry with a motive to spread those lies?

Even if they were, if they were calling for change to more environmentally friendly solutions, and advocating for them, that doesn't make one a hypocrite for using oil.
If they were suggesting everything to do with oil should be illegal, and they used them, then it is.

Quote

If jackB tells you 99.9% of scientists believe the earth is round ball - should you beleive him?

You're talking about the fallacy of consensus.

No, I'm not. As postulated by you, JB is stating what he believes to be a fact. I agree that JB is likely correct about this based on the presumption that true scientists are well educated enough to know that the earth is [nearly] spherical.

If I based my acceptance of that number on "well, gee, lots of other people say that almost all scientists believe the earth is spherical, so I guess that must be right", that would be falling for the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. That's not what I base my acceptance on, however.

If 99.9% of the people in the world supposedly wanted you to jump off a bridge and have fun, should you do it?

I have jumped off bridges, and it was fun. Mind you, I did check to be certain the water was deep and otherwise safe enough to jump into before jumping in every case, even if I had jumped off the same bridge before, because underwater hazards can move.

I didn't need a crowd of people telling me to do that. The consensus would most likely be "don't do it", anyway.

Well, granted, that sort of consensus would be fucking demoralizing, but the point is, NO, you should actually distrust an alleged consensus, and even a real consensus. Two heads are better than one because they give each other second opinions. Because you disagree, I can think through ideas and figure out better ones. On the other hand, two people who agree had better be lovers, because if you're not getting laid for being agreeable, it's pretty tiresome. A committee of people who think exactly the same way, by extension is completely monstrous. Let's shout down any new ideas.

Let's think about this for a moment.

The value of scientific consensus is that it is usually formed because it supports the most plausible explanations of phenomena in the face of knowledge at hand - based on measurements, observations, and theory. It's hard to break consensus, and that's not entirely bad because not all new ideas are of equal merit; ideas that are well supported by hard evidence will gain traction, more time is devoted to ideas that are more promising, and wilder hypotheses gain less attention. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" keeps us from having to spend an enormous amount of time running down every single crackpot idea. Breaking consensus absolutely can and is done more often than is popularly realized, though. It's accomplished by discovering new data that is better explained by a new idea than the old one, or by a new idea that does an equal or better job with the existing data but makes new predictions possible that can be tested and are found to be correct. Once it has been independently verified enough, it usually becomes the new consensus. It takes hard work to do it; that seems to piss you off.

One of the best examples is the old concept initially proposed as "Continental Drift" in early 20th century geology. It was based on what appeared to be obviously matching coastlines and similar fossil records in areas that are separated by large oceans, both of which suggest they were once adjoined. The problem was, there was no other evidence supporting this - none, no evidence whatsoever for continents plowing through the ocean floor, and no plausible mechanism to make such a thing happen. The hypothesis languished until the 1950s and various theories of "vertical tectonics" explaining the formation of mountain belts ruled the day.

During WWII much effort went into the problem of detecting and tracking submarines, and much of the equipment developed - highly-sensitive magnetometers, sonar, and other depth-sounding devices - was later declassified, often given to or sold as surplus for peanuts to scientific institutions, and was found to be very useful for mapping the ocean floors. Also a worldwide network of seismograph stations all using the same instruments was proposed for the purpose of detecting nuclear tests was established and rapidly expanded starting in the 1950s. Data from these facilities could be used to accurately locate earthquake epicenters (and, with improvements in digital computing, earthquake hypocenters, which included depth as well as geographic location).

What the newly-available data showed led to the elegant and completely unforeseen model we know as Plate Tectonics. It was so compelling that it overtook and replaced the old consensus quite rapidly and almost nobody is looking back.

Other rapid paradigm shifts were the emergence, acceptance, and then consensus around relativity and quantum mechanics. There are many others.

You invented fire?!? Mmmm, the committee doesn't like that. Fire is hot! We want to freeze for another couple of centuries.



Consensus is the antithesis of science. Science is about the study of new ideas. The repeated testing, to make sure you understand things right. The submission of these new ideas, which lead to inventions and innovations. And yes, occasionally some very destructive weapons. Consensus by contrast is unhelpful groupthink.

Nope. It's an effective brake on a lot of nonsense, like some of the examples that you suggest next.

It is a bunch of bureaucrats sitting in a room telling people instead of working on building cleaner cars and houses, "Sorry, we're sure that cars and stoves damage the environment so you should walk everywhere, and live in an ice-cold house." Yeah, no. You literally just told me that 99% of people think I should freeze to death.

Can you provide actual evidence that the "bunch of bureaucrats" you hypothesize are 99% of people? I bet you can't.

Quote

Friends of Science (FoS) is a non-profit advocacy organization based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The organization rejects the established scientific consensus that humans are largely responsible for the currently observed global warming. Rather, they propose that "the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change," not human activity. They argued against the Kyoto Protocol. The society was founded in 2002 and launched its website in October of that year. They are largely funded by the fossil fuel industry.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you complaining that this group is part of "the 99%" trying to "freeze you to death"?

Even worse. There are climate scientists (and I use that term loosely), who legit want to make artificial clouds because the sun is hot. Obviously, they've never watched this movie.



In this movie, because of climate hysteria, they spread a chemical known as CW-7, a cooling gas... which sorta kinda works a little too well.

It's a movie (taking your word for it). Part of your problem is that you conflate movies with actual science.

Isn't this the sort of reason having the inertia of "the consensus" is not always bad?

You fail to realise the point (big surprise!)

Not in the agreement of c9nsensus, but the point being you, a sucker for big oil, beleiving a finaicially motivated propogandized report touting the amazingness of big oil.

Big Oil or Big Electric.

You're no less a shill. But I know what the actual definition of a shill is.




A shill is someone who pushes a product because they have something to gain from it. The most common example, of course, is at a carnival having a game that people commonly lose, but the shill makes it look easy. Just as the most common motive for a shill is that they are paid money for promotion of the game or product.

So let me make something clear: this is what I have to gain from not switching the Big Electric. Not fucking spending hours of my life recharging. Not kidding myself about the real source of "electric" cars.  Not revamping the entire energy grid of my home. Actually being able to drive away if there's an emergency (like the forest fires of California) instead of getting stranded because I forgot to plug in that day (it takes 15 minutes to pump gas, so even if the gas station eventually explodes, I can drive away before it does; meanwhile, the electric car cannot escape in time). Oh yeah, and the fact that I am literally being coerced by Joe Biden to switch? How about no? Literally anything that senile asshole tells me to do is a hard pass.

Meanwhile, you somehow think I don't notice that while the electric car doesn't blow visible fumes, this power plant certainly does!


Green energy? Hardly! And no, solar and wind power don't work everywhere. In the valley of West Virginia and Tennessee, their options are basically limited to coal, oil, and natural gas. Guess what? Electricity produced by oil/gas is less efficient carried through multiple sets of electric wires, power converters, etc than it is directly from tank to combustion. To say nothing of having to use hours of energy to recharge a car, when only 15 minutes will fully "charge" an ICE car.  But "Gasp! ICE cars are big stinking polluters!" Not until the car is fucked up. Before that, they have numerous devices in the car that clean the emissions. To say nothing of not adding to the load of a power plant.



Oh and btw. What do you think happens when you mow down a bunch of trees? Well, they release heat back into the air! Trees also regulate water, preventing drought. It also says that trees remove 17.4 million tons of pollution from the air each year.  All of this is gone when you have to chop down trees for your power plant.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190911-what-would-happen-if-all-the-worlds-trees-disappeared
If you want to talk about "global warming" try mowing down millions of trees. And you have to remove them anyway for the pie-in-the-sky solar panel or wind turbine idea, as they need space for the sunlight or wind.

I’m sorry the mighty one is right, although you are up to a point.
Electric cars that are ultimately powered by gas/oil are no little better than petrol/diesel, but the shift to renewables has been stymied by the industries that have vested interest in keeping the status quo.
But, to believe that the polluters who own the yachts, Islands, Bugatti’s and more importantly the power that their vast fortunes command are the good guys, that they would allow the development of an integrated system of wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal that would undercut their wealth and influence without a fight, is naivety in the extreme.

Your sources are the think tanks and disinformation bureaus like the Heritage foundation, The Heartland institute, and the competitive Enterprise Institute, funded by guess who.

Well, partly by Exxon who knew in 1982 what the truth was, as they did an in house climate model written by a guy called Steve Knisely.
Knisely projected that unless fossil fuel use was constrained, there would be “noticeable temperature changes” and 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air by 2010, up from about 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution. The summer intern’s predictions turned out to be very close to the mark. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20211028/114185/HHRG-117-GO00-20211028-SD025.pdf

They restricted the report to Exxon personnel and didn’t distribute externally and now fund anti-climate change think-tanks.

“Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.”
 

A shill is someone who pushes a product because they have something to gain from it.

No, it isn't.
A shill is someone who pretends to be someone they are not, to pretend to be an impartial outsider, while directly profiting from a scam.

So no, we aren't shills.
Conversely, the crap you link are a bunch of shills.

How about no? Literally anything that senile asshole tells me to do is a hard pass.

So just irrational hatred?
What if he tells you to drink water. Will you stop doing that?

Meanwhile, you somehow think I don't notice that while the electric car doesn't blow visible fumes, this power plant certainly does!

Depends on the power plant.
Not all burn fossil fuels.

Guess what? Electricity produced by oil/gas is less efficient carried through multiple sets of electric wires, power converters, etc than it is directly from tank to combustion.

Yet you provide nothing to support this, and don't even attempt to consider the waste of having a car just sitting their idling, or regenerative breaking.

ICE cars are big stinking polluters!" Not until the car is fucked up. Before that, they have numerous devices in the car that clean the emissions.

They may have a catalytic converter to make it nicer, but it certainly isn't clean.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on August 08, 2023, 01:08:22 PM

Protesting against oil while doing nothing to actually develop working alternatives or using available environmentally friendly solutions all the while using products made from oil and that consume oil makes you a hypocrite.

Are they protesting it, or just calling out lies by an industry with a motive to spread those lies?

Even if they were, if they were calling for change to more environmentally friendly solutions, and advocating for them, that doesn't make one a hypocrite for using oil.
If they were suggesting everything to do with oil should be illegal, and they used them, then it is.

What lies? 

Solar, geothermal, hydro, and wind can't alone support the current electrical grid, let alone a grid that anti-fossil fuel lobbyists want to inundate with more electric powered vehicles.

And if you want to talk about environmental, none of the "renewables" are exactly environmental friendly.  They all require oil to manufacturer and/or maintain the power generation.  They also negatively impact wildlife and migratory patterns.  For instance, wind turbines have killed numerous birds included those on the endangered species list, but that's ignored because it's "green" energy.

The current most environmentally friendly and cost efficient power source is nuclear, but go run that by the environmentalist groups.

Fusion power has been years away for years.  Until there is a stable working fusion plant that is continuously generation power, it's not a working solution.  Then there are the costs associated, which while can be "projected" are unknown until the plants are built.

Furthermore, the data that is used to determine what I would call climate extremism is a limited dataset.   The earth is billions of years old.  The last ice age is said to have ended ~12000 years ago while starting ~115,000 years ago.  We have temperature data from what a couple of hundred years, if that.  Yeah, we have ice core samples that date back millions of years, but that doesn't give actual temperatures and the data derived is at best an educated guess based on a limited dataset.


Now, for me personally, I don't have issues with being environmentally conscious, but I don't think that we should be running anti-fossil fuels with no working efficient solutions.

A few things, we do know roughly what temperatures existed in the past, the ice cores you mentioned contain trapped air bubbles, In controlled laboratory environments, we can measure the chemical makeup of the air that has been trapped - how much oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen gas was present in the atmosphere at the time it was buried in the ice. From these measurements, we can calculate past temperatures using empirical data on how these gases hold heat in the modern atmosphere. This will only give us temperatures for a few million years at best.

But the fossil records of single celled sea organisms is extensive and they contain isotopes of oxygen 16 & 18 and these apparently, depending on their proportions give us a very good idea of the temperatures due to their differing behaviours during glaciation, lighter O-16 being more prevalent in ice.
Isotopes of carbon from sedimentary deposits can do the same. There are many ways to correlate temperature from fossils, if you find tree palms in Alaska it's a pretty good indication that when that fossil was laid down then it was a tad warmer.

All this aside we do know that during the carboniferous and Permian coal forming eras that vast amounts of carbon was extracted from the air and buried, and from the massive insect fossils (a millipede was found at Howick bay Northumberland in 2018  that when alive was estimated to have been 55 centimeters (22 inches) wide and up to 2.63 meters (8.6 feet) in length, weighing 50 kilograms (110 pounds)), that this increased the ambient oxygen levels.

From the sheer amount of coal deposits found it is calculated that 100 gigatonnes of carbon every year was removed, and those forests were stable for about 10 million years, and we are releasing that, plus the oil, back into our atmosphere in what is in geological time, an instant.

If you really don't think that is a cause for concern then the oil barons have really done a good job on you.



https://museum.wales/articles/1243/How-coal-cooled-the-climate-300-million-years-ago/
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/12/20/europe/giant-millipede-biggest-bug-uk-northumbria-scn/index.html
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/blogs/national-museum-of-natural-history/2018/03/23/heres-how-scientists-reconstruct-earths-past-climates/

What lies?

How about the simple one of claiming anthropogenic climate change isn't real?

Now, for me personally, I don't have issues with being environmentally conscious, but I don't think that we should be running anti-fossil fuels with no working efficient solutions.

Sure, you have no issues, you just call people hypocrites when they are.

Billionaires bought off the scotus.
World powers having proxy wars over oil.
Countries use tax funded subsidies their own oil production.

A lawyer sucessfully sued and the judve prosectuor and defendent colluded against him and put him under house arrsst (free donziger)

But sure...suuuure if there was some better cheaper alternative to plastic im suuuure someone wouldve come up with it and taken ocee the market.




Lets bring back aesbestos insullation and lead paint because they were superior products.




Grab you love handles that youve been growing for 10yrs.
Sit in an ac room.
No issue.
Start doing jumpung jacks.
Getting hot?



Nonsense.

Quote from: JackBlack on August 08, 2023, 01:48:54 PM

Even if they were, if they were calling for change to more environmentally friendly solutions, and advocating for them, that doesn't make one a hypocrite for using oil.
If they were suggesting everything to do with oil should be illegal, and they used them, then it is.

What lies? 

Solar, geothermal, hydro, and wind can't alone support the current electrical grid, let alone a grid that anti-fossil fuel lobbyists want to inundate with more electric powered vehicles.

And if you want to talk about environmental, none of the "renewables" are exactly environmental friendly.  They all require oil to manufacturer and/or maintain the power generation.  They also negatively impact wildlife and migratory patterns.  For instance, wind turbines have killed numerous birds included those on the endangered species list, but that's ignored because it's "green" energy.

The current most environmentally friendly and cost efficient power source is nuclear, but go run that by the environmentalist groups.

Fusion power has been years away for years.  Until there is a stable working fusion plant that is continuously generation power, it's not a working solution.  Then there are the costs associated, which while can be "projected" are unknown until the plants are built.

Furthermore, the data that is used to determine what I would call climate extremism is a limited dataset.   The earth is billions of years old.  The last ice age is said to have ended ~12000 years ago while starting ~115,000 years ago.  We have temperature data from what a couple of hundred years, if that.  Yeah, we have ice core samples that date back millions of years, but that doesn't give actual temperatures and the data derived is at best an educated guess based on a limited dataset.


Now, for me personally, I don't have issues with being environmentally conscious, but I don't think that we should be running anti-fossil fuels with no working efficient solutions.

The problem, Jack Black, is that Jack Nicholson is right. None of these "solutions" are very good. 

Btw, would it kill them to put a protective screen around these turbines? Like a regular fan has. 

Solar cells and wind turbines both require cutting down large swaths of forest land if they are place anywhere that is not already a desert wasteland. They require mining for rare materials in many cases. They require oil to ship and to build these devices, otherwise the electricity to make them comes from nowhere.  After some are built, maybe you can use the energy from them to build others. But in the mean time, there is no power to build the things that supply power, short of cheating and using the old power systems.
It gets worse. You know they talked about birds getting cut because of wind turbines? Well, solar cells are often made using a lovely substance called graphene.  This is awesome to make a sword out of, because it is literally sharpened to the thinness of a single atom.  The problem is, when it shards off, if can cut through ground, fish, even molecules of water (creating pollution).

In 2022 or so, they cut down several forests and just left the wood there (nice!) and it has been hotter ever since. I personally know that trees regulate the water and temperature and other conditions. Now we have droughts or too much rain.

I also personally experienced a solar system while on a farm in New Mexico. They used solar power to pump the sprinklers... meaning for roughly half the day (despite being in a hot and sunny desert) the sprinklers couldn't shut on.  I couldn't keep the plants alive.

Then there's the fact that while this tech is still in the early prep stages, our beloved president is basically forcing gas prices up in order to pressure everyone to switch.

Here's an idea. Why don't you switch, and you pay for all the electric bills from now on?

As for me, I know what I can and cannot pay for. I also am pretty clear that despite having a ICE lawnmower, no hummingbirds in our area have dropped dead. In fact, the only animals killed by the mower are insects and arachnids that manage to get chopped by the blades.  The same cannot be said of our pool. Despite only a salt-based system and no heating, we have scores of dead insects. Thankfully, no birds want to take a birdbath in it.

Btw, would it kill them to put a protective screen around these turbines? Like a regular fan has.

So you complain about it being so wasteful, and heavy and so on, and want to make it even heavier and more wasteful with a large screen? A screen which would limit air flow and efficiency?

You sure do hate them.

Solar cells and wind turbines both require cutting down large swaths of forest land if they are place anywhere that is not already a desert wasteland.

Or in the ocean.

They require mining for rare materials in many cases.

And the big difference is that you don't just burn that.

They require oil to ship and to build these devices, otherwise the electricity to make them comes from nowhere.

So you are saying renewable power can never work, because it never provide electricity, instead it all needs oil?
Guess what? You can use electricity from renewable sources to power things.

After some are built, maybe you can use the energy from them to build others.

i.e. it is a forward looking solution, where we invest now to have renewable power in the future.
And you ignore that future and just want to focus on not being able to power everything off them now.

Just like plenty of machines require parts so precise that they cannot be made by hand. But we can make machines by hand which are precise enough to make more precise machines and so on; or how compilers can be written in the language they are compiling.

Well, solar cells are often made using a lovely substance called graphene.  This is awesome to make a sword out of, because it is literally sharpened to the thinness of a single atom.  The problem is, when it shards off, if can cut through ground, fish, even molecules of water (creating pollution).

Can you make a single post without spouting such utter BS?
Especially when you provide literally nothing to back up your delusional BS.

Firstly, graphene is NOT used in most solar panels. I don't know of a single commercial which uses it. And for good reason.
It is not a great conductor for current collection, and it has a band gap of 0, making it useless as a photovoltaic material.
So there really is no reason to use it. Before we even get to how expensive it is.

It is a single sheet of atoms. It isn't "sharpened" to that thinness.
And this makes it incredibly fragile. This means it can't cut through anything. It doesn't have the strength to do so.
It certainly can't cut through a molecule.

I personally know that trees regulate the water and temperature and other conditions.

Do you know? Or do you just spout whatever delusional BS you want?

Trees aren't magic. They can't regulate water or temperature.
The closest you get to that is them using water, and consuming CO2.

Then there's the fact that while this tech is still in the early prep stages, our beloved president is basically forcing gas prices up in order to pressure everyone to switch.

No, supplies are limited, and Russia wants to play games.
It isn't Biden jacking up the price.

Here's an idea. Why don't you switch, and you pay for all the electric bills from now on?

How about you give me free, unlimited petrol from now on?

(Your post gave me a 503 cuz it made stuff too long)

(In reverse order)

How about no? My request is basically because if you're demanding a switch not just for yourself but for me, you ought to pay the price for both, effectively buying my support. Make it free to switch and I MIGHT consider it. But no, your request is out of a strong desire to be a mooch. Not that I'm surprised. We have a library, and I routinely see leftist assholes with electric cars plugging up to their power. Let's review. Electricity isn't free. So what kind of asshole must you be not to pay for your own electricity but instead force that burden on a business? It would be one thing if you were about to be stranded and weren't close enought to your house. But no, the people who use these cars routinely do this to a business that serves the community. No free gas for you, but by all means, you can pay your own electricity bills and mine if you are in such an urge to get me to switch.

No, dumbass. Russia is blamed for Biden's own actions. But he admitted the cause of high prices.
https://nypost.com/2022/05/23/biden-praises-gas-prices-as-part-of-incredible-transition/
Gas prices are "part of an incredible transition." Yes, he admits that the reason gas prices are high is that he cancelled a Trump era planned oil pipeline and cancelled fracking systems, in order to push the idea of electric cars despite them being only niche popularity among American ppl, and most wondering whether they really work. Most Americans are not able to afford real electric cars btw. The reality is that those who want electric power get stuck with cheap golf carts. That's what I've seen, and they're mostly for in-town travel. Long distance travel is impractical.

During this colossal failure to sell the public on an expensive car with poor range and very long refill time, he decides to make Russia a scapegoat when he also fails at diplomatic relations between Ukraine and Russia. Sorry, but you don't get to blame someone else for your constant failures.

Uhhhh, yes they can?

Leaves help turn down the thermostat. They cool the air through a process called evapotranspiration. Evapotranspiration is the combination of two simultaneous processes: evaporation and transpiration, both of which release moisture into the air. During evaporation, water is converted from liquid to vapor and evaporates from soil, lakes, rivers and even pavement.

Shade provided by strategically planted deciduous trees cools buildings during the warm months, allows the sun's warming rays to shine through its branches in the winter and also protects buildings from cold winds. With some planning, urban trees can help minimize the heat island effect that saddles many cities.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/storms/trees-affect-weather1.htm

Maybe do some research. As I've said before to you guys.

That maybe be true. I don't happen to know offhand what percent of solar panels use graphene, only that the shards are very sharp and kinda toxic to the environment.

Yeah uhhh no. Investing in the future sounds great on paper but it's like this... Would you buy a toaster that cooks bread, knowing that it creates crumbs and soot (something I've noticed about toasters, a mess collects in the bottom)? Or one that promises not to leave crumbs and soot but they still haven't worked out how to get it to cook bread without a "recharge phase"? That's the problem of these so-called renewable fuel sources. We could build a RICE car (renewable internal combustion engine) by fully configuring it to burn regular cooking oil. People would simply switch from a gas station to a fast food joint, and buy their leftover oil. Or even a solid matter engine, and just chop little branches off of trees for burning. Or we can fiddle around with a huge battery that is expensive to make, still not use renewable fuel just pull a magician's trick so most ppl don't know where their fuel comes from, and have the problem of "not making toast." The point of a car is transportation freedom. But you're trying to control how far people can drive, and further dictate where (through self-driving cars that will literally turn around, if I for instance go to try to brick the house of someone in the Deep State). Just as the crap above is not a real toaster, that's not a real car.

I gave two examples of renewable sources for cars neither of which took ALL DAY to recharge. ICE works. Charging is inefficient and people have busy lives. It must be a real PRIVILEGE that you can talk about sitting at a charging station for hours if you don't have the money for fast charge (which btw damages the battery). So all that it would take to fix ICE is to switch from fossil fuel to renewable combustion, anything from trash burning to fast food oil to legit branches from a tree. Ideally, our cars should be consuming something we constantly produce. A RICE car. Or we can do it your way and have poverty and wasted time from lost work hours.

In the ocean? No. Water tends to rust some materials and dissolve others. You're talking about rare earth dissolution polluting our waters. Good to know you're so eco-friendly and filled with foresight about your own actions. Now, I dunno what most of these turbines are made of, but I have read that the materials are far less green than they are sold. Meanwhile, ICE materials can simply be recycled in most cases. But I'll look up what the wind turbines are made of before next paragraph.

Alright then, I'll take the screen of the fan you use to cool yourself with in the summer. And I'll push you into it because you say that safety is not a premium. For reference, the waste comes from shipping the materials, and if you haven't even cleared for safety, that's two no votes from me instead of just one. Just as I would not buy a sharp metal overhead fan that seems poorly screwed in and has no shutoff switch if it comes loose, I think it's appalling that you don't think maybe they can just make these turbines like old windmills instead of making them out of concrete and steel, fitting them with a permanent magnet generator (PMG) using rare earths like neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, and terbium then adding in a carbon resin to actually sharpen the blades, then sandwiching anything from balsa wood to foam or plastic before adding another layer of carbon resin. Somehow you think this is green rather than extremely tech and very impersonal.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/charlie-hoffs/how-are-wind-turbines-made/
When I think of green, I think of walking on a forest trail and having wind brush against my face, the trees providing shade, and birds chirping away. I don't think of big metal turbines with Frankenstein science making up their construction chopping up little birds into chunks. That you've balked at the idea of a screen to prevent birds from getting too close (even an air-permeable screen) tells me you are not green and not a friend of nature. As if it wasn't obvious from you wanting to test the water solubility of all these rare earth metals. I don't even know whether or not they are soluble, but frankly I don't want to find out and have undrinkable water and belly up fish. ICE cars can and should be recycled. Steel is fairly safe to the environment provided we don't do like Russia did and produce just to produce.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

We are in a interglacial period of the current Quaternary Glaciation, which is the current ice age.

In earth's history there are periods of time when glaciers were not on earth.  Those times are between actual ice ages, covering 100s of millions of years, and not the common inference of the term to the interglacial period of an ice age.

We have no data from between the 5 major ice ages.  You can't pull ice cores, because those cores don't exist.  So when I say that climate extremism is based on limited data, this is what I refer. 

So you didn't read any of it then? Just sticking to the fossil fuel narrative fine, how about Exxon's data and investigation during the 80,s before they laid of most of their research team and started to pump money to the deniers. 


This is the Steve Knisely report, as a result of this through the 80's Exxon researchers worked alongside university and government scientists to generate objective climate models that yielded papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Their work confirmed the emerging scientific consensus on global warming’s risks
https://insideclimatenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/CO2-and-Fuel-Use-Projections.pdf
The conclusions of Exxon’s climate modelling were being circulated broadly within the company in the 1980s.
Marvin B. Glaser, an Environmental Affairs Manager at Exxon, distributed a 43-page primer on climate change on Nov. 12, 1982.
In a cover letter to 15 Exxon executives and managers, Glaser said the document provided guidance “on the CO2 ‘Greenhouse’ Effect which is receiving increased attention in both the scientific and popular press as an emerging environmental issue.” He continued: “The material has been given wide circulation to Exxon management and is intended to familiarize Exxon personnel with the subject.”
“However, it should be restricted to Exxon personnel and not distributed externally,” he wrote.


But then in 89 they started to reel back and cast doubt on the findings, saying, like you the data was inaccurate, when they knew it wasn't, one of the guys who'd written he was “well convinced, as were most technically trained people, that the IPCC’s case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very tight.” later he said the research “was flimsy.”

Now those predictions are coming true, why do you think a major fossil fuel producer ($55.7 billion profit 2022) would possibly hide the research (it didn't come to light unti 2015 when research produced by InsideClimate News, the Los Angeles Times, and the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism revealed that Exxon had known since the 70s about the causes of climate change) in the first place and then seek to discredit it?

And can you show where those findings are outside of the earth's normal cycles?

How about no?

Then don't try demanding it from me.

I'm not the one demanding anything.

But no, the people who use these cars routinely do this to a business that serves the community.

So you are complaining about a "business" that serves the community, serving the community?
Why don't you say the same thing about books and computers that they have? That if you want one you should go buy your own rather than mooch off a business?

No, dumbass. Russia is blamed for Biden's own actions. But he admitted the cause of high prices.
https://nypost.com/2022/05/23/biden-praises-gas-prices-as-part-of-incredible-transition/

Did you bother reading that?
No.
You just found some crap, and then proceeded to lie about it.
No where did he claim that he was responsible. In fact, it stated quite clearly that he was making is less bad.
Instead, this transition is highlighting the transition away from reliance upon fossil fuels.

Uhhhh, yes they can?

No, they can't.
They don't magically regulate temperature to a desired level.

That maybe be true. I don't happen to know offhand what percent of solar panels use graphene, only that the shards are very sharp and kinda toxic to the environment.

No, you don't know anything about it. You just spout whatever BS you can to pretend there is a problem.
And the really pathetic part is that there is plenty about toxicity of solar panels you could focus on, but instead you chose to focus on pure BS.

We could build a RICE car (renewable internal combustion engine) by fully configuring it to burn regular cooking oil.

Or to burn ethanol. Or to burn hydrogen, but in that case a fuel cell may be better.
Remember, I'm not here saying everyone must have an electric car, or a battery car.
Conversely, you are here saying fossil fuels are the way, and renewables are stupid because you need to use fossil fuels to get them started.

Or even a solid matter engine, and just chop little branches off of trees for burning.

That would be a steam engine, which would likely be quite bad and dangerous.

In the ocean? No. Water tends to rust some materials and dissolve others. You're talking about rare earth dissolution polluting our waters.

No, I'm not.
Do you think they just equally disperse all those materials throughout the turbine?
If so, you truly have no idea what you are talking about.
They need those materials in particular locations.
Unless the turbine catastrophically failed and fell into the ocean, it would not be putting rare earth metals into the waters.
Likewise, with solar panels, unless they fell into the ocean, it would not be putting rare earth metals into the ocean.

Yet again, you are just looking for excuses to dismiss renewables, and don't give a damn how truthful your claims are.

Alright then, I'll take the screen of the fan you use to cool yourself with in the summer. And I'll push you into it because you say that safety is not a premium.

So because it is explained why your idea is stupid, you want to intentionally harm people that explain why you are wrong?
You truly are vile and childish to the extreme.

For reference, the waste comes from shipping the materials

No, it also comes from having to get the additional materials you want to use, which will add to the weight quite significantly, which will then require stronger materials to hold it up; and in addition makes it harder for the turbine to pivot due to the extra weight, increasing the momentum of inertia, and increasing drag in the wind, while taking away efficiency.
That is incredibly wasteful.
But you would probably love for them to do that so you can claim they are so useless.

Just as I would not buy a sharp metal overhead fan that seems poorly screwed in and has no shutoff switch if it comes loose

Yet do you demand a safety cage for an overhead fan?
As for an off switch, just what kind of off switch are you expecting?
The turbines aren't powered to spin.
Again, you are just coming up with pure BS to dismiss things you don't like.

I think it's appalling that you don't think maybe they can just make these turbines like old windmills

So you don't want them to be efficient?

fitting them with a permanent magnet generator

And what did you want them to do?
Make them only useful for grinding wheat?

When I think of green, I think of walking on a forest trail

And you entirely fail to understand what green means in this context.
It is not saying it is a forest. It is saying that it isn't damaging to the environment, or at least far less so than alternatives.

even an air-permeable screen

Feel free to tell us how you plan on making an air-permeable screen which will not significantly add to the weight, or decrease efficiency or add drag.

tells me you are not green and not a friend of nature.

Because you want it to.
I have explained why a screen would be worse, but you don't care. You just want an excuse to dismiss.

ICE cars can and should be recycled. Steel is fairly safe to the environment provided we don't do like Russia did and produce just to produce.

But steel is not the only component in it.
ICE cars still use batteries. They use rare earth metals in their catalytic converters, yet still pollute.
They have motors, and ECUs.

Why not just go back to using a horse?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

We are in a interglacial period of the current Quaternary Glaciation, which is the current ice age.

In earth's history there are periods of time when glaciers were not on earth.  Those times are between actual ice ages, covering 100s of millions of years, and not the common inference of the term to the interglacial period of an ice age.

We have no data from between the 5 major ice ages.  You can't pull ice cores, because those cores don't exist.  So when I say that climate extremism is based on limited data, this is what I refer.

For that matter, Earth may actually consist of rings of ice due to glacial cycles. Yes, like a tree.



The freeze and thaw creates rings, pushing Earth outward. 

So you didn't read any of it then? Just sticking to the fossil fuel narrative fine, how about Exxon's data and investigation during the 80s before they laid off most of their research team and started to pump money to the deniers. 

:scoffs:

That's why I'm rolling in money over here.

Actually, the climate change narrative is funded by fringe groups who have been trying to make electric cars a thing since the early 1800s.



https://www.reviewgeek.com/143286/the-history-of-electric-vehicles-is-older-than-you-think/

They keep talking about "increasing range". No, that's like giving a big 18-wheeler a bigger fuel tank, increasing it from 10 or 15 gallons to 60 gallons. You spend more at pump, and the weight lag still makes the range suck. The problem of increasing range is it sucks more energy at the source, meaning bigger and bigger power plants. These alt power plants are a joke, basically used to give you a good feeling about the energy the electric car is using. But the energy grid isn't really using that, and can't support that without bulldozing most of the green land in the country to make room.  We need a single good solar plant or wind plant, instead of loads of weak solar cells or wind turbines. Waste of space means waste of trees. Fuel efficiency. This is what ICE worked on. And they have gotten better and better at it.

Electric cars lost in the 1800s, and they don't work any better now.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 12, 2023, 06:48:46 AM

How about no?

I'm not the one demanding anything.

You're demanding we all support you in your harebrained scheme to replace functional cars with...

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 12, 2023, 06:48:46 AM

But no, the people who use these cars routinely do this to a business that serves the community.

So you are complaining about a "business" that serves the community, serving the community?
Why don't you say the same thing about books and computers that they have? That if you want one you should go buy your own rather than mooch off a business?

Suppose I ran in to a library at night and camped out? I take money from the till, eat food from the library worker's fridge, then I use the space to sleep (clearing out an hour before open), and leave an enormous mess in the toilet. There is a difference from proper use of what the library allows, and abusing their trust.

If you have an electric car, and you are stranded, it's one thing if one of the staff says, "No worries! You can charge it today to get you home!" It's quite another if instead of using the electricity of your own home, you cheapskate their resources. Then it becomes clear you're person who wants special perks at all times.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 12, 2023, 06:48:46 AM

No, dumbass. Russia is blamed for Biden's own actions. But he admitted the cause of high prices.
https://nypost.com/2022/05/23/biden-praises-gas-prices-as-part-of-incredible-transition/

Did you bother reading that?

No.
You just found some crap, and then proceeded to lie about it.
Intelligence is the ability to read between the lines. Gullible fools don't bother to interpret and buy the lie.
No where did he claim that he was responsible. In fact, it stated quite clearly that he was making is less bad.
Instead, this transition is highlighting the transition away from reliance upon fossil fuels.
Yes, I am aware of what he said. It's what he meant that disturbs me.  Remember when the fuel supply was "hacked by terrorists"? Since about that point, fuel prices rose, and Biden talked about the transition away from fossil fuels. Translation: Biden's leftist goons hired some folks from Silicon Valley to hack the fuel systems, and now the president controls the fuel grid. If he has it in his head to restrict the pump in order to force people to "transition" away from gas, he can try this. That's what the man meant.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 12, 2023, 06:48:46 AM

Uhhhh, yes they can?

No, they can't.
They don't magically regulate temperature to a desired level.

It's not magic. You want me to read articles, but you don't even read quotes. Like the one about evapotranspiration where it literally talks about trees creating moisture.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 12, 2023, 06:48:46 AM

We could build a RICE car (renewable internal combustion engine) by fully configuring it to burn regular cooking oil.

Or to burn ethanol. Or to burn hydrogen, but in that case a fuel cell may be better.

Ethanol is bullshit. Anything that must be shipped to source is bullshit. Shipping to source boils back to (a) using the same new fuel to ship new fuel, doubling cost of same new fuel or (b) using gas to ship new fuel.  Any new fuel means you have to either be able to buy it from a store (e.g. vegetable oil), pull it from a dumpster, or cut it from a tree. Shipping new fuels requires the fuel to be several times more efficient, or the "gas to ship new fuel" problem arises. Ethanol ain't it. It's just hype.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 12, 2023, 06:48:46 AM

Or even a solid matter engine, and just chop little branches off of trees for burning.

That would be a steam engine, which would likely be quite bad and dangerous.

If you can prove climate change exists, don't you think maybe we can build a cleaner steam engine nowadays? What you think electric cars (around since 1800s) can be improved to useability, but steam engines which actually worked well enough for trains to run are bad?  Hypocrite!

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 12, 2023, 06:48:46 AM

In the ocean? No. Water tends to rust some materials and dissolve others. You're talking about rare earth dissolution polluting our waters.

No, I'm not.
Unless the turbine catastrophically failed and fell into the ocean, it would not be putting rare earth metals into the waters.
Likewise, with solar panels, unless they fell into the ocean, it would not be putting rare earth metals into the ocean.

Water is a solvent. Things tend to become solutions in water. Chlorine water, sugar water, salt water. These are solutions. Have you even bothered to find out if some of these substances are water soluble? I don't know, but I know that another material, lithium had a rather disastrous solution reaction. You are so unbelievably cocky to think nothing bad will go down again!

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-environmental-impact-of-lithium-batteries/

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 12, 2023, 06:48:46 AM

Alright then, I'll take the screen of the fan you use to cool yourself with in the summer. And I'll push you into it because you say that safety is not a premium.

So because it is explained why your idea is stupid, you want to intentionally harm people that explain why you are wrong?

If you think it doesn't hurt living things, there should be no problem, right? Are you willing to stake your life on that assumption? No? Then why does your life get to be better than that of birds?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 12, 2023, 06:48:46 AM

fitting them with a permanent magnet generator

And what did you want them to do?
Make them only useful for grinding wheat?

You don't think maybe they can generate energy while being made of materials not sharp enough to decapitate birds.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 12, 2023, 06:48:46 AM

When I think of green, I think of walking on a forest trail

And you entirely fail to understand what green means in this context.

It is saying that it isn't damaging to the environment, or at least far less so than alternatives.

Because fauna isn't part of the environment of course. Dead birds and fish, asshole.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 12, 2023, 06:48:46 AM

tells me you are not green and not a friend of nature.

I have explained why a screen would be worse, but you don't care. You just want an excuse to dismiss.

Inefficiency is not a good energy reason. It something is green, yet kills wildlife, it is not green.

Why not just go back to using a horse?

Because cars, unlike horses, can be retrofitted to eat different "food". The problem is, you give no good solutions, only "solutions" that cause way more problems.  Dead birds and fish are not a solution to the environment. Nor is cleared land that bulldozes trees to make room instead of a single power plant.

Windmills back then could have been built using iron or steel. But both those and water mills were invariably built with wood. Coincidence? No, older generations understood environmental stewardship. You only pretend to.

And can you show where those findings are outside of the earth's normal cycles?

Well for starters. Those cycles you are on about, you disputed our knowledge of earlier, but if you are now trying to use them them then the Milankovich cycle that is present in the ice cores would suggest we should be in a cooling era.

And you haven't answered this point.

All this aside we do know that during the carboniferous and Permian coal forming eras that vast amounts of carbon was extracted from the air and buried, and from the massive insect fossils (a millipede was found at Howick bay Northumberland in 2018  that when alive was estimated to have been 55 centimeters (22 inches) wide and up to 2.63 meters (8.6 feet) in length, weighing 50 kilograms (110 pounds)), that this increased the ambient oxygen levels.

From the sheer amount of coal deposits found it is calculated that 100 gigatonnes of carbon every year was removed, and those forests were stable for about 10 million years, and we are releasing that, plus the oil, back into our atmosphere in what is in geological time, an instant

Co2 being a greenhouse gas isn't contested even by sceptics, so how can we be releasing all the above without making a change?