Hillhater said:PS: i didnt bother reading beyond that first line !
You never do.
eta: plus if you read further I explained why the question should be deferred to you. You just assumed I was begging inanities because that's what you do. :wink:
Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
- Thread starter Hillhater
- Start date
You never do.
eta: plus if you read further I explained why the question should be deferred to you. You just assumed I was begging inanities because that's what you do. :wink:
Hillhater said:
Nope. Another lie.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...us-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99
The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.
“There is no doubt left – as has been shown extensively in many other studies addressing many different aspects of the climate system using different methods and data sets,” said Stefan Brönnimann, from the University of Bern and the Pages 2K consortium of climate scientists.
“This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle. This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions,” said Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College London.
“This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle. This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions,” said Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College London.
sendler2112
100 kW
"Agriculture already uses almost half of the world’s vegetated land. It consumes 90 percent of all the water used by humanity and generates one-quarter of the annual global emissions that are causing global warming. And yet of the seven billion people living today, 820 million are undernourished because they don’t have access to—or can’t afford—an adequate diet.
“We have to produce 30 percent more food on the same land area, [ How can we do this without giant farm tractors that run on liquid fuel. And without artificial fertilizer that is made with and from fossil carbon] stop deforestation, and]cut carbon emissions for food production by two-thirds, All of that must be done while reducing poverty levels and the loss of natural habitat, preventing freshwater depletion, and cutting pollution as well as other environmental impacts of farming."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/07/how-to-feed-the-world-without-destroying-the-planet/?cmpid=org=ngp::mc=crm-email::src=ngp::cmp=editorial::add=Science_20190724::rid=00000000041266339255
“We have to produce 30 percent more food on the same land area, [ How can we do this without giant farm tractors that run on liquid fuel. And without artificial fertilizer that is made with and from fossil carbon] stop deforestation, and]cut carbon emissions for food production by two-thirds, All of that must be done while reducing poverty levels and the loss of natural habitat, preventing freshwater depletion, and cutting pollution as well as other environmental impacts of farming."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/07/how-to-feed-the-world-without-destroying-the-planet/?cmpid=org=ngp::mc=crm-email::src=ngp::cmp=editorial::add=Science_20190724::rid=00000000041266339255
Hillhater
100 TW
That is correllation and assumption,...not proofsendler2112 said:
As for the isotope measurements...i have asked repeatedly for someone to produce the results that prove the 120ppm increase is due to anthropogenic CO2 ...
....everyone has avoided producing that answer.
Hillhater
100 TW
Your memory is letting you down, as much as your sense of logic ...jimw1960 said:
Do you really want me to review the last 100 pages. Or so of posts to remind you of my esteemed opinions ?
Completely destroying the economy would be great for the environment as a whole. Most of humanity would die out, and the remainder would result in a very small impact on the environment.sleepy_tired said:
It is worthwhile, IMO, to avoid that outcome.
Correct. We place a high priority on safety. Same reason that flying is expensive compared to buses.
The point of it is - both of those things. By making it possible to become very, very rich by significantly reducing CO2 emissions, everyone will try to become rich in that way.
Agreed. The goal is to reduce them, not end them. Get them to 15-20% of what they are now and the ecosystem can easily absorb the excess.
Also agreed. A carbon tax is just one tool that works. You need more than one tool for any project.
One of the funniest things about climate change deniers is how their denial changes on a weekly - sometimes daily - basis. They regularly switch back and forth between:Punx0r said:
1) The climate's not changing, stupid! NASA was wrong. Someone fudged the numbers. It was hot in 1914. It snowed yesterday!
2) Of course the climate's changing - but we're not doing it, stupid! It's the sun. It's not the sun, it's cosmic radiation. It's certainly not CO2. Of course it's CO2 but we didn't release it, someone else did. It's clouds! Yeah, that's the ticket. Maybe it's aliens. We just don't know and there's certainly no consensus.
3) OK maybe we had something to do with it - but all the changes will be good! CO2 is an amazingly effective aerial fertilizer that will cure starvation, acne and bad breath. Why, it would be almost criminal to stop releasing that CO2 that I just claimed we're not releasing.
And they never see any conflict between all of the above statements - even when the same person claims all of the above. Because to them what's important isn't the science - what's important is denial.
Hillhater said:
Again, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. You're just parroting something you've heard and don't understand.
From a purely statistical standpoint there's no way to determine causation outside of a controlled experiment.
This is exactly how the tobacco industry operated for many years. Since it's completely unethical to lock 100 people in a room and force them to smoke until they get lung cancer, the correlation between smoking and lung cancer can't be considered causation.
The chemical companies still rely on this. Look at Dow, they still make and sell PFOA. There is a very strong correlation to Teflon and birth defects, but there's no actual causation. People are something like 2 or 3 times more likely to get cancer living downstream from the Dow plant making PFOA's, but that's just correlation, not proof.
Hillhater
100 TW
I choose to ignor irrelavent bullshit that just serves to avoid answering the question asked.billvon said:
billvon said:
This is exactly what I don't get. It's always blatantly contradictory. HIllhater is arguing the proxy data doesn't mean anything, then in the next breath "it's natural variation". Um, the natural variation was determined using proxy data dude, so which is it?
It's interesting how they overlook these inconsistencies. To some extent you have to believe it's pathological.
Hillhater said:
You've never made a coherent argument against AGW. It's mostly just trying to poke holes in other peoples' posts and demanding ever more "proof", but you only request it of others, never provide any yourself and the definition of proof is your own, unique, one.
furcifer said:
Judging by Hillhater's posts generally (not just on AGW) he's a contrarian. I remember being like that as a teenager. When you're smart enough to string together a plausible-sounding objection to shoot down any popular concept (but not smart enough to recognise the limits of your own ignorance) it makes you feel special and superior.
TheBeastie
1 MW
News on Tesla's solar business, really seems like solar is the worlds most subsidised business.
Tesla's solar energy business takes a turn for the worse
https://buffalonews.com/2019/07/24/teslas-solar-energy-business-takes-a-turn-for-the-worse/
The interesting story about the Tesla solar factory is the fact it was built via taxpayer funds from the article ->
"built the factory with $750 million in taxpayer funds."
But the deal was they would hire over 500 people at the solar factory, Tesla claims they have hired that many, but workers at the actual factory say it's impossible to count more than around 50 people in the whole building, I have posted articles/youtube videos on that in the past.
Tesla's solar energy business takes a turn for the worse
https://buffalonews.com/2019/07/24/teslas-solar-energy-business-takes-a-turn-for-the-worse/
The interesting story about the Tesla solar factory is the fact it was built via taxpayer funds from the article ->
"built the factory with $750 million in taxpayer funds."
But the deal was they would hire over 500 people at the solar factory, Tesla claims they have hired that many, but workers at the actual factory say it's impossible to count more than around 50 people in the whole building, I have posted articles/youtube videos on that in the past.
sendler2112
100 kW
TheBeastie said:
Built with grants from the "Buffalo Billion" NY state stimulus money after the crash of 2009. Unfortunately most of the businesses that received money turned out to be scams. Several NY politicians and business men close to the Governor were recently sentenced to prison for corruption.
.
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2018/07/20/new-york-corruption-scandals-heres-who-has-been-convicted-2018/795849002/
.
Other than oil (google "depletion allowance") nuclear (Price-Anderson act) and coal (subsidizes land leases. Plus depletion allowance.)TheBeastie said:
And of course those are old news. Trump recently passed a new $10+ billion subsidy for coal and nuclear plants. That's above and beyond all those subsidies above. Makes that $750 million look like a rounding error.
Oh, and there's this:
====================
Ohio Enacts Controversial Bill to Subsidize Nuclear, Coal, and Slash Renewable Standard
07/23/2019 | Sonal Patel
Ohio’s Gov. Mike DeWine (R) on July 23 quickly signed a controversial nuclear subsidy bill that narrowly passed the state’s House of Representatives on Tuesday, making Ohio the fifth state in the nation to prop up nuclear power.
Lawmakers passed H.B. 6 with a 51–38 vote Tuesday. The bill passed the state Senate on July 17, sparking a week of debate prior to the House passage, which was uncertain after House Speaker Larry Householder expressed concerns the measure wouldn’t have enough support in his chamber. The bill has faced fierce opposition by a wide array of groups, including advocates for renewables and clean energy, the natural gas industry, and competitive generators.
The law essentially provides FirstEnergy Solution’s (FES’s) Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear power plants with an estimated $150 million a year during the 2021 to 2027 period to keep the reactors in service. It also provides about $60 million a year through 2030 to keep two Ohio Valley Electric Corp. (OVEC) coal plants—one in Ohio and another in Indiana—in operation.
====================
You were complaining about a one time subsidy of $750 million for new technology. This is $210 million to keep old technology running. A YEAR. So in five years we'll be out a billion dollars for plants that are going to shut down soon anyway. And they need it because they can't compete with solar and wind.
sendler2112
100 kW
sendler2112
100 kW
Hillhater said:
“This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle. This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions,” said Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College London.
You're just lying now.
eta: and just to bring this back into perspective, you actually need to prove it isn't from burning fossil fuels. We're entertaining your delusion because....why not. The reality is we have 99% of the scientists involved in studying climate change agreeing the increase is anthropogenic. And then you saying it isn't.
Up until this last study, I think the percentage of published journal papers supporting AGW was 99.95%, something like 60000 papers in favour, and 25 still uncertain. I imagine some of those will be revisited now that this has been published.
jonescg
100 MW
sendler2112 said:
This might be true, but if we look at subsidies per MWh or Petajoule for each energy source over time, you will see that fossil fuels are still in the lead. I agree that renewable energy subsidies will need to be wound down, indeed rooftop PV is cheap enough to be completely viable without any subsidy.
View attachment 11 How large are global fossil fuel subsidies.pdf
sendler2112
100 kW
I don't follow the "over time" statement? If one energy source get a subsidy of $1/ MWh, and another gets $100/ MWh that it actually produces, The $1/ MWh is much less subsidy. Right?jonescg said:
jonescg
100 MW
My point is that coal oil and gas have been in use for over 100 years, and have attracted 100 years worth of support from public money. When they first started they would have been quite expensive per PJ or MWh, but are quite low today. Still, that's over 100 years of subsidisation. Solar and wind has been subsidised for only a decade or so, and will likely see a reduction in that support as the technology begins to stand on it's own. I don't believe wind and solar will get 100 years worth of subsidisation, I give solar 5 years and wind maybe 10.
sendler2112
100 kW
"Instead of a divorce between society and nature, one should rather pursue couple’s therapy to reconcile one with the other, namely figuring out how to ensure the provision of what is required for the “good life” following a principle of prudent stewardship and non-exploitation. The issues we find ourselves in can be solved backward by acting on the elements that created the problem in the first place, namely the choice of countries to pursue economic growth at all social ecological costs. It is the end of the battle of the de-words, and decoupling has lost. Now that the oven is warm, what degrowth thinkers should focus on is finding ingredients (policies) and recipes (transition scenarios) as to make sure the societal project of degrowth results in a delicious cake."
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-07-26/decoupling-is-dead-long-live-degrowth/
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-07-26/decoupling-is-dead-long-live-degrowth/
Similar threads
