DJL 235 #2101 December 16, 2019 9 minutes ago, turtlespeed said: It's Trumps fault! See. Everyone knows. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,370 #2102 December 16, 2019 2 hours ago, brenthutch said: COP25 (UN climate talks) a complete bust. CO2 emissions are up 4% since the Paris Agreement. You must be thrilled. Wendy P. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #2103 December 16, 2019 2 hours ago, brenthutch said: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/dec/15/cop25-un-climate-talks-over-for-another-year-was-anything-achieved COP25 (UN climate talks) a complete bust. CO2 emissions are up 4% since the Paris Agreement. This makes is apparent that we're not doing enough and it's becoming even more important to bring in leadership with a strong economic background who wants to make a real impact. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/06/climate/bloomberg-climate-pledge-coal.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,495 #2104 December 16, 2019 4 hours ago, DJL said: This makes is apparent that we're not doing enough and it's becoming even more important to bring in leadership with a strong economic background who wants to make a real impact. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/06/climate/bloomberg-climate-pledge-coal.html That's one of the reasons the Paris Agreement was so important. While it certainly wouldn't have been enough, it would have been a start. And (more importantly) it would have provided political incentive for other countries to start doing something. We (the US) are by far the worst polluters on a per capita basis. When the Mango Mussolini says (in effect) that we don't care, we aren't going to do anything to reduce our emissions and that he doesn't believe what the science community says; he removes any chance for us to convince anyone else to make any changes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #2105 December 16, 2019 1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said: he removes any chance for us to convince anyone else to make any changes. The name calling - Really? Anyway - That is simply not true. MOST of the world already sees reality even if he doesn't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #2106 December 17, 2019 16 hours ago, turtlespeed said: The name calling - Really? Anyway - That is simply not true. MOST of the world already sees reality even if he doesn't. Additionally, US mayors, led by Bloomberg let the World know. We lost some traction with Trump but hopefully the next President can make up for it. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/climate/american-cities-climate-standards.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,877 #2107 December 18, 2019 On 12/16/2019 at 5:06 AM, brenthutch said: COP25 (UN climate talks) a complete bust. CO2 emissions are up 4% since the Paris Agreement. Hooray for you! Maybe you can switch to hoping that we destroy the ozone layer again. It might mean your air conditioner could be half a dollar cheaper, and what could be more important than that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #2108 December 18, 2019 1 hour ago, billvon said: Hooray for you! Maybe you can switch to hoping that we destroy the ozone layer again. It might mean your air conditioner could be half a dollar cheaper, and what could be more important than that? My guess is that retooling to get back to R-12 would be very expensive indeed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 428 #2109 January 25, 2020 (edited) More magical thinking, very expensive magical thinking at that. https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a30472835/crescent-dunes-solar-plant/ Wind is not doing much better. https://www.suncommunitynews.com/articles/the-vermont-eagle/the-end-of-wind-power-in-vermont/ https://www.standard-freeholder.com/news/local-news/auditor-general-to-probe-costs-of-cancelling-nation-rise-wind-farm Edited January 25, 2020 by brenthutch Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,877 #2110 January 26, 2020 On 12/17/2019 at 5:49 PM, turtlespeed said: My guess is that retooling to get back to R-12 would be very expensive indeed. At this point the facts of the matter aren't an issue. It's how you FEEL about the evil environmentalists stealing your air conditioner. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 428 #2111 January 26, 2020 How do you FEEL about these facts? https://www.brinknews.com/how-long-will-the-slowdown-in-renewables-last/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 205 #2112 January 26, 2020 Shhhh...church is in session. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 428 #2113 January 27, 2020 https://notrickszone.com/2020/01/26/0-34-kwh-german-electricity-prices-skyrocket-to-new-record-highs-a-gigantic-redistribution-machine/ It is curious just how expensive "free" energy can be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #2114 January 27, 2020 (edited) 54 minutes ago, brenthutch said: https://notrickszone.com/2020/01/26/0-34-kwh-german-electricity-prices-skyrocket-to-new-record-highs-a-gigantic-redistribution-machine/ It is curious just how expensive "free" energy can be. It sounds more like we need to research and develop an efficient storage device or storage tech. You should be jumping behind this with both feet - Best case scenario is the potential for energy that they (either municipalities, or energy companies) pay you to use. Quote Money for nothing According to the German government, wind turbine operators alone received a total of 635 million euros in compensation in 2018 because they were unable to feed their electricity into the grid because of the times it was not needed. This “compensation” will be even more drastic in 2019, because in the first quarter alone there were strong winds; the wind turbines delivered so much electricity – but at inopportune moments, and so it could not be used, not even given away to neighboring countries. Edited January 27, 2020 by turtlespeed is is is is is Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 428 #2115 January 30, 2020 https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/EnviHarmsPB.pdf Green new deal is not only impractical, it would also destroy the environment Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,922 #2116 January 30, 2020 9 minutes ago, brenthutch said: https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/EnviHarmsPB.pdf Green new deal is not only impractical, it would also destroy the environment Heartland? very droll. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 205 #2117 January 30, 2020 Please open your hymnals to page 420.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 428 #2118 January 30, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, kallend said: Heartland? very droll. Thank you for your informative and inciteful contribution to the conversation. I'll bet you didn't even read it. Edited January 30, 2020 by brenthutch Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #2119 January 30, 2020 43 minutes ago, brenthutch said: Thank you for your informative and inciteful contribution to the conversation. I'll bet you didn't even read it. You're quoting a source that is paid to deny climate change and oppose any legislation or innovation not in the interests of the fossil fuel industries. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,495 #2120 January 30, 2020 1 hour ago, DJL said: You're quoting a source that is paid to deny climate change and oppose any legislation or innovation not in the interests of the fossil fuel industries. He's quoting the same people who spent decades denying that cigarettes were dangerous. All the while being paid by the tobacco companies. So, of course they are worth reading. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #2121 January 30, 2020 4 hours ago, DJL said: You're quoting a source that is paid to deny climate change and oppose any legislation or innovation not in the interests of the fossil fuel industries. Technically speaking, every climate scientist is paid to tell one story or another. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,393 #2122 January 30, 2020 2 hours ago, turtlespeed said: Technically speaking, every climate scientist is paid to tell one story or another. Technically speaking, that is incorrect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #2123 January 30, 2020 4 minutes ago, SkyDekker said: Technically speaking, that is incorrect. Technically he's technically not wrong depending on the technical definition of "technically". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,155 #2124 January 30, 2020 2 hours ago, DJL said: Technically he's technically not wrong depending on the technical definition of "technically". And the meaning of “is”? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,495 #2125 January 30, 2020 2 hours ago, SkyDekker said: Technically speaking, that is incorrect. Oh, come on. The false equivalency of a group of people being paid (by industries with an agenda) to push climate denial being equal to research scientists working under grants is essentail to the 'denier stance'. Kinda the same as the false equivalency of Trump's crimes being equal to Hillary's. One having a couple major investigations resulting in multiple indictments, guilty pleas and prison sentences, the other having multiple major investigations resulting in... Nothing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites