Page 123 of 126 FirstFirst ... 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 LastLast
Results 3,051 to 3,075 of 3148
  1. #3051
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    452
    Quote Originally Posted by Core Shot View Post
    Have you considered terminating your existence?
    Do you or still eat meat?
    Do you own a car? Of any kind. Even the vaunted Tesla is worse than pubic transportation
    I hope you aren’t so selfish to be living in a freestanding home.
    So wasteful.

    I certainly hope you earn all your own turns. Lift served skiing should be banned. At least a car might take you to work to produce something useful. But lift skiing is frivolous and should be banned ASAP.
    Oh yeah, that's right, only people who are perfect can try to improve things

  2. #3052
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    4,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Core Shot View Post
    Have you considered terminating your existence?
    Do you or still eat meat?
    Do you own a car? Of any kind. Even the vaunted Tesla is worse than pubic transportation
    I hope you aren’t so selfish to be living in a freestanding home.
    So wasteful.

    I certainly hope you earn all your own turns. Lift served skiing should be banned. At least a car might take you to work to produce something useful. But lift skiing is frivolous and should be banned ASAP.
    Why does it have to be so extreme? Just cutting back some is a good thing...

    Your quote; And why has the argument shifted from global warming to climate change?
    If this is really how you think, your are very ignorant. Assuming you're ignorant and asking a real question; when one of the drivers of weather change, ie moisture, temperature wind, geography...you will get a different outcome. When the temperature increases it will effect the weather, weather patterns over a long period of time are climate. So when the temperature increases it mwill lead to a change in climate.

    But you know that. Your comment is just a denier tactic.
    https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/12/what...lobal-warming/

    The largest CO2 producer in the USA is transportation, followed close by energy, it would be easy to make fuel mileage standards, but every PUTUS has kicked that can down the road
    https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sou...-gas-emissions

  3. #3053
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Missoula
    Posts
    1,367
    Still waiting for some of that science that questions the relationship between co2 and temperature.

  4. #3054
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    land of the free
    Posts
    8,809
    what about ending the federal reserve?
    Low interest rates have allowed the plunder of the earth and expansion of development of real estate as well as the population.

    But no we can’t have any slowdown of the economy. Dow must go up up up up.
    Same reasons you aren’t getting anywhere with emissions reductions. Can’t kill the golden goose that gets everyone re-elected

    Small changes are happening. But nothing that makes a dent.

    I did see that one of our lumberyards has started placing azek recycle bins on larger job sites.
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.”
    Hunter S. Thompson

  5. #3055
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    452
    Quote Originally Posted by Core Shot View Post

    But no we can’t have any slowdown of the economy. Dow must go up up up up.
    Same reasons you aren’t getting anywhere with emissions reductions. Can’t kill the golden goose that gets everyone re-elected
    Now that is a good and interesting point. Endless growth as the baseline goal for society does seem a) unsustainable and b) pointless when the benefits only accrue to the top 0.1%.

  6. #3056
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    11,205
    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx View Post
    Now that is a good and interesting point. Endless growth as the baseline goal for society does seem a) unsustainable and b) pointless when the benefits only accrue to the top 0.1%.
    Yeah, I ponder that one myself frequently. Current US GDP is ~$19 trillion and needs to grow by ~3% per year. 3% annual growth is a doubling time of ~23 years. You're telling me that in less than 50 years, when I will hopefully still be alive, GDP is going to be ~$80 trillion? And in another 23 years when my kid is still alive it will be ~$160 trillion? I don't see how that's remotely possible. There are inescapable realities of exponential growth that are fast approaching us--when and how the music stops is really fucking scary. I wish I had Ray Kurzweil's optimism.

  7. #3057
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx View Post
    So in other words "Oh no, it's impossible for our society to come up with anything better than the status quo!"

    LOL, I actually feel a little sorry for you that you are paid to deliver that line...
    I feel sorry for you that your brain somehow interprets my post that way.

  8. #3058
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    1 more thing, have you heard of the planets Venus or Mars? Sure you have. One of the main reasons they can't support life as we know it is too much CO2. Look it up. Something about runaway greenhouse effect. At least in the case of Venus.
    We've already discussed this. The density of the atmosphere on Venus has a greater effect on the warmth of the planet than the greenhouse effect of CO2. Mars has a lot of CO2 in its atmosphere. It is cold due to its lack of density.

  9. #3059
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Ron's favorite fraudster Steve Goddard aka Tony Heller along with wattsupwiththat, notrickzone, and Breitbart try to argue that it's PV=nRT and that CO2 has nothing to with it.

    They ignore the straightforward math and prattle on about Death Valley and Everest then talk about pressure on Venus to argue against the existence of a greenhouse effect. The conspiratorial nonsense proceedes on the assumption that climatologists and astrophysicists are unaware of the ideal gas law.
    You mean the guy you tried to discredit and failed? I don't think anyone is using atmospheric pressure to argue against the greenhouse effect. Saying that Venus' extreme temperature is due to its extreme pressure doesn't deny the greenhouse effect.

  10. #3060
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    Ron couldn’t read a basic graph and failed to understand intermediate statistics. You think he has the capacity to understand the ideal gas law?

    I was around a bunch of boomer deniers this week. A few of whom I’ve know through work for years and have heard them on this topic before. They all now seemed to have begrudgingly come around to the fact that GW / CC is real. Yet lack the self awareness to admit how wrong they were on the topic. Yet still oppose any action to curb green house gas emissions as it is inconvenient and could harm the economy in the short term. Several even through in a, “well I’ll be gone before we really have to deal with it anyways. The kids will have to figure it out.” Leave the next generations up to their eyeballs in fiscal and climatological debt.... cool guys.
    Almost 600 posts and all you guys can hang your hat on is me misinterpreting a graph and misreading a sentence about a sigma confidence level.

  11. #3061
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    452
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I feel sorry for you that your brain somehow interprets my post that way.
    So you do think we can improve on the status quo of being fossil-fuel reliant? I'm glad you finally got on board with the program, our time spent helping you understand these issues over the last 600 posts when we would rather be perusing the NSFW threads has paid off!

  12. #3062
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx View Post
    So you do think we can improve on the status quo of being fossil-fuel reliant? I'm glad you finally got on board with the program, our time spent helping you understand these issues over the last 600 posts when we would rather be perusing the NSFW threads has paid off!
    Yes, but it could be a while considering that solar and wind are unlikely to do it.

  13. #3063
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,256
    Why not? This would be comical if it weren't such bullshit.

  14. #3064
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    20,897
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Almost 600 posts and all you guys can hang your hat on is me misinterpreting a graph and misreading a sentence about a sigma confidence level.
    Why discuss Nabokov with a thrashing illiterate, especially when they can't understand with whom they might actually agree.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  15. #3065
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    4,108
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Almost 600 posts and all you guys can hang your hat on is me misinterpreting a graph and misreading a sentence about a sigma confidence level.
    shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt

  16. #3066
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Why not? This would be comical if it weren't such bullshit.
    How many times have I posted this?

    https://www.manhattan-institute.org/...ear-impossible

  17. #3067
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,549
    https://amp.trueachievements.com/n40...y-announcement

    Microsoft have pledged in their sustainability announcement to be carbon negative by 2030, and by 2050 to have removed all the carbon the company's emitted since it was founded in 1975, either by electrical consumption or directly. The announcements come from Microsoft President Brad Smith, Chief Financial Officer Amy Hood, and CEO Satya Nadella.
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    the situation strikes me as WAY too much drama at this point

  18. #3068
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    8,109
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Almost 600 posts and all you guys can hang your hat on is me misinterpreting a graph and misreading a sentence about a sigma confidence level.
    No there were a ton of other things. I stopped correcting you after showing you were posting incorrect things and incorrectly interpreting basic science / statistics the first four or five times. Like when you claimed that it was reasonable to only compare melt to snowfall and ignore calving on Greenland.

  19. #3069
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    8,109

    Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Ooh an opinion piece from a conservative think tank that is paid for by industry. That settles it then.

    A small example:
    “With today’s technology, $1 million worth of utili- ty-scale solar panels will produce about 40 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) over a 30-year operating period (Figure 2). A similar metric is true for wind: $1 million worth of a modern wind turbine produces 55 million kWh over the same 30 years.13 Meanwhile, $1 million worth of hardware for a shale rig will produce enough natural gas over 30 years to generate over 300 million kWh”.

    Hey look, we ignored the cost of operational labor for this super misleading statistic! Not like it costs much to operate a shale rig for 30 years... Not disingenuous at all to only quote hardware costs.

    If this were even remotely true then why is the cheapest electricity in the world from solar farms?
    Last edited by neufox47; 01-17-2020 at 08:37 PM.

  20. #3070
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    No there were a ton of other things. I stopped correcting you after showing you were posting incorrect things and incorrectly interpreting basic science / statistics the first four or five times. Like when you claimed that it was reasonable to only compare melt to snowfall and ignore calving on Greenland.
    There weren't a ton of other things, and I never claimed it was reasonable to only compare melt to snowfall and ignore calving on Greenland. I was defending a video critiquing the media's coverage of summer melt.

    Let's not pretend you haven't been plenty wrong in your limited involvement in this discussion.

  21. #3071
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    Ooh an opinion piece from a conservative think tank that is paid for by industry. That settles it then.
    That's just a cop-out. I can just as easily claim the same about any pro solar/wind left wing sourcing.
    A small example:
    “With today’s technology, $1 million worth of utili- ty-scale solar panels will produce about 40 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) over a 30-year operating period (Figure 2). A similar metric is true for wind: $1 million worth of a modern wind turbine produces 55 million kWh over the same 30 years.13 Meanwhile, $1 million worth of hardware for a shale rig will produce enough natural gas over 30 years to generate over 300 million kWh”.

    Hey look, we ignored the cost of operational labor for this super misleading statistic! Not like it costs much to operate a shale rig for 30 years... Not disingenuous at all to only quote hardware costs.
    Do you think it costs nothing to operate solar and wind? Do you think operating a shale rig is so costly that it's going to make up for the 6x difference in energy production? You got any sourcing?

    If this were even remotely true then why is the cheapest electricity in the world from solar farms?
    Because they make up a small % of a grid backed by fossil fuels. Remove the fossil fuels and the costs are enormous.

  22. #3072
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,945
    However, the climate costs of fossil fuels are even more ginormous.
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  23. #3073
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    8,109

    Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    That's just a cop-out. I can just as easily claim the same about any pro solar/wind left wing sourcing.

    Do you think it costs nothing to operate solar and wind? Do you think operating a shale rig is so costly that it's going to make up for the 6x difference in energy production? You got any sourcing?

    Because they make up a small % of a grid backed by fossil fuels. Remove the fossil fuels and the costs are enormous.
    Solar and wind farms have minimal cost and the output is electricity. Yes, the cost to generate and the cost of labor is more than 6x the cost. We know this because, by far, the cheapest generation of power cost is solar. It isn’t until you factor in the cost of storage, that fossil fuels become cheaper in most areas of population.

    There’s an issue with storage currently, everyone can agree on that. But for your arguments and the Manhattan institutes position to be correct, you have to assume that energy storage costs will not continue to drop exponentially (it will) and that we go to 100% renewables (the hardest 1% is the last 1%). Your argument starts at the absolute of no bio-generation, no nuclear, etc. Nothing but wind, solar, and batteries. Only the extreme proponents of renewables are saying these things. I

    Change the argument to we are going to use nuclear reactors, geothermal, hydro, tidal, etc (depending on a given area) to produce a constant 10-30% of the grid. Then add in locally deployed solar and batteries, smart grids, transmission upgrades, scaled utility rates, and some fossil fuels where absolutely necessary and it all becomes much more feasible.

    You were found completely wrong on numerous obvious points which demonstrated a fundamental lack understanding of science and statistics. I’m not going to waste a ton of time disproving someone who claims to have google fu’d their way into disproving the vast majority of climatologists. Your latest graph is a fantastic example. You just blew out the scale and acted like that was informative.
    Last edited by neufox47; 01-17-2020 at 11:11 PM.

  24. #3074
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,945
    Why do you fear this change so much, Ron?
    Are you not invested properly?
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  25. #3075
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,256
    New study finds that going 100 percent renewable energy world wide is feasible and would pay for itself in 7 years:

    A global effort to transition to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050 would cost nations $73 trillion upfront — but the expense will pay for itself in under seven years, according to a new report from researchers at Stanford University. The study also found that the shift to a zero-carbon global economy would create 28.6 million more full-time jobs than if nations continue their current reliance on fossil fuels.

    The report, published in the journal One Earth, presents detailed roadmaps for how 143 countries that account for 99.7 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions could successfully transition to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050. The report is a follow up to a 2015 study by the same research team that generated state-by-state plans for the United States, findings that helped lay the groundwork for the Democratic Party’s proposed Green New Deal.

    The roadmaps call for increased energy efficiency and the electrification of all energy sectors, including transportation, buildings, heating and cooling, industrial processes, agriculture, forestry, fishing, and the military. The blueprint also finds it is technically and logistically feasible for countries to get 80 percent of their energy needs from wind, hydroelectricity, and solar by 2030, and 100 percent by 2050. The analysis excludes nuclear power, biofuels, and clean coal. New renewable energy infrastructure would require just 0.17 percent of the 143 countries’ total land area, as well as 0.48 percent of land for “spacing purposes,” such as the area between turbines, according to a press release.

    In the U.S., reaching 100 percent renewable energy by 2050 will require an investment of $7.8 trillion. It will involve building 288,000 new 5-megawatt (MW) wind turbines and 16,000 100-MW solar farms on 1.08 percent of U.S. land (85 percent of that land will be used for spacing purposes, and could serve other functions, such as for farmland). Such an initiative would create 3.1 million more jobs than if the U.S. stayed on a business-as-usual trajectory, and would save 63,000 lives from air pollution every year, the report said. The decarbonization plan would also reduce energy costs by $1.3 trillion per year, because renewable energy is cheaper to generate over time than fossil fuels. In addition, the plan would cut health and climate costs by $700 billion and $3.1 trillion annually, respectively, compared to current fossil fuel infrastructure.

    “There’s really no downside to making this transition,” Jacobson told Bloomberg News. “Most people are afraid it will be too expensive. Hopefully this will allay some of those fears.”

    https://e360.yale.edu/digest/the-glo...gy-73-trillion

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •