Page 46 of 97 FirstFirst ... 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... LastLast
Results 1,126 to 1,150 of 2416
  1. #1126
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,847
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Clarification: I did review his points and sites for a while, but they are all well known denier sites with false and debunked information, aka bullshit or lies. I no longer look because I refuse to waste my time on that crap. So I did look, found that it was full of false information that has been proven to be incorrect, bad science, and / or cherry picked, and now no longer waste time on it.

    If we all view his points and his sites we are helping to further his credibility, and he should have none. He knows he is wrong but can win by creating doubt. He does not deserve our attention.
    No clarification necessary--why waste your time reading bullshit? Now back to the Daily Stormer.

  2. #1127
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    47,038
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    He does not deserve our attention.
    It's been amusing watching you guys go full Don Quixote on this moron though.

  3. #1128
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,193
    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    It's been amusing watching you guys go full Don Quixote on this moron though.
    True dat. I tilted at this windmill for a while, but now mostly just share climate information for others to view.

  4. #1129
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,874
    RJ's source, NTZ, just gave him less than zero credit. Below is how "his source" handles the "data". Fucking retard needs to go away

    The first time that Breitbart ran a NTZ based-story, numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves.

  5. #1130
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,382
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    True dat. I tilted at this windmill for a while, but now mostly just share climate information for others to view.
    Those windmills slow down the wind and cause warming... unless they're on a treadmill.
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  6. #1131
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    Those windmills slow down the wind and cause warming... unless they're on a treadmill.
    new meme idea

    every time you flail your arms, a windmill turns its wings

  7. #1132
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    16,592
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    No Trick Zone, wow, just wow.

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/40...rming-is-myth/

    The first time that Breitbart ran a NTZ based-story, numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves.

    Claim
    Hundreds of papers published in 2017 prove that global warming is a myth.

    Rating

    False
    surely lil ron ron has a substantial response to this!

  8. #1133
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    16,592
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    RJ's source, NTZ, just gave him less than zero credit. Below is how "his source" handles the "data". Fucking retard needs to go away

    The first time that Breitbart ran a NTZ based-story, numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves.
    and this!

  9. #1134
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,847
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    Those windmills slow down the wind and cause warming... unless they're on a treadmill.
    Nobody asks what will happen when we run out of wind.

  10. #1135
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    OOTAH
    Posts
    2,480
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    Nobody asks what will happen when we run out of wind.
    If this forum is any indication I donít see the hot wind ceasing anytime soon.
    Samuel L. Jackson as Jules Winnfield: Oh, I'm sorry. Did I break your concentration?

  11. #1136
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,847
    Quote Originally Posted by teleee View Post
    If this forum is any indication I don’t see the hot wind ceasing anytime soon.
    lol

  12. #1137
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,193
    Quote Originally Posted by wyeaster View Post
    surely lil ron ron has a substantial response to this!
    Surely RJ will have a lie to counter this. It will be either some false data showing how this is wrong or some claim attacking the source. He would find a way to argue that yellow isn't yellow if it created doubt and confusion and suited his argument.

  13. #1138
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,874
    I went looking back to see if his "charts" had and links, not many did, hmmmm...

  14. #1139
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,750
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    One of main main points I've made in this discussion has been that there isn't anything that can actually be done with our current tech. If 100% non carbon renewables were able to replace our current energy system at a reasonable cost then by all means, go for it. The problem is they can't. Trying to force a 100% non carbon renewable energy system on the US would be economic suicide and do virtually nothing to combat rising CO2 levels. The only way to make this happen is to get the tech to a point where it makes economic sense for the entire world to adopt.

    In the meantime, we're better off saving the money for adaptation.
    None of that makes sense. You either start pushing towards a renewable energy future or you donít.

    Economic suicide - Sky is falling much?. Sure maybe for coal fired power plants or something but not as a broad economy. Thatís simply scaremongering bullshit.

    Of course it wonít happen immediately but if you donít start working on it, then the time when 100% renewables are possible will simply be pushed X years down the road.

    Saving the money adaptation. So you answer is #2, ignore the possibility and take whatever comes.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Profane View Post
    Keystone is fucking lame. But, deadly.

  15. #1140
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Posts
    5,136
    Quote Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick View Post
    None of that makes sense. You either start pushing towards a renewable energy future or you don’t.

    Economic suicide - Sky is falling much?. Sure maybe for coal-fired power plants or something but not as a broad economy. That’s simply scaremongering bullshit.
    Even if you remove the GW angle it makes sense to devote a sizeable portion of energy investment towards renewables. There's a fallacy out there that fossil fuels are going to run out in the medium term when in actuality the only scarce resource on earth is human time/labor. With the application of hoomans you can produce anything desired. Buuut it corresponds to a price & that price is likely to resume its upward trend for crude at least (maybe not for Natgas at least for a decade+). So if you have solar/wind/nucular/hydro getting solid funding in parallel you get a much more diverse and thus robust energy infrastructure. If and when renewable costs beat that of fossils you can transition while muting the impact of FF cost increase on teh economy.

    Nat gas is a sticking point though. Pursuing increased adoption of ng would be yugely beneficial for American labor interests given reserves & world-leading infrastructure in LNG. And it would be cleaner than crude, albeit retaining CO2 downsides. But enviro crowd *hates* LNG. Look at what enviro-nuts have done in Canadia... single-handedly subverted the Canadian GDP per capita by rendering their energy production barely profitable. Had Canada built a BC & more interior pipelines they'd get higher prices on their production & have much more capital to throw towards tight budgets in cross-province transfer payments & entitlements.

    Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

  16. #1141
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,193
    Technology problems. Wind probably stopped blowing.

  17. #1142
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,193
    Please don't just accept RJ's basic point that 100% renewables is not possible, or that it is too expensive. That, too, is untrue.

    Large scale wind is cheaper than natural gas (what is unnatural gas? - more fossil fuel and GOP spin doctoring?) and much cheaper than coal. Utility scale solar is cheaper on par with gas, and again much cheaper than coal. Battery storage is a bit more expensive, but not a lot, and those prices are coming down fast. There are other storage options besides batteries too, plus smart grids can shift energy quickly to where it is needed from where it is being produced (ie no wind in WA, it probably is blowing in MT).

    Switching to renewables will save a great deal of money in avoided climate impacts. The 2018 National Climate Assessment says those could cost 10% of GDP by the end of the Century:

    The continued warming that is projected to occur without substantial and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions is expected to cause substantial net damage to the U.S. economy throughout this century, especially in the absence of increased adaptation efforts. With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the centuryómore than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many U.S. states.
    https://nca2018.globalchange.gov


    And, there are huge health care and worker productivity savings with switching to renewables:

    Renewable power pays for itself with better health
    by Sarah DeWeerdt | Sep 3, 2019

    Fighting climate change is only one reason to switch to renewable energy sources like solar and wind power. In many U.S. states, renewable energy infrastructure is also a powerful investment in public health.

    For example, across 10 U.S. Rust Belt states policies known as renewable portfolio standards will require an average of 13% of electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2030.

    Building out that renewable infrastructure will cost $3.5 billion and yield $2.8 billion in savings from avoided climate change impacts, according to an analysis published August 12 in in Environmental Research Letters. But it will also result in $4.7 billion in health benefits from avoided medical bills and lost wages.

    The study adds to a growing body of work suggesting that the health benefits of moving away from fossil fuels are often greater than the costs of doing so.

    Thatís because phasing out fossil fuels also tends to result in better air quality. Burning fossil fuels releases a variety of air pollutants, the most harmful of which is a kind of fine soot known as PM2.5. This substance has been linked to serious health problems such as asthma, lung cancer, heart attack, and stroke.

    The states included in the analysis are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, West Virginia, New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware. Many of these states currently generate a lot of their electricity from coal Ė a particularly prominent source of PM2.5.

    Researchers pulled together a series of existing models, drawing on data from a variety of U.S. government agencies, to estimate the economic, air quality, human health, and climate change effects of renewable portfolio standards.

    They found that if the states strengthened their renewable policies, the cost-benefit picture would look even better, because the policiesí health benefits increase more rapidly than their costs.

    If Rust Belt states required 20% renewable power on average by 2030, this would yield $6.4 billion in climate benefits and $13.5 billion in health benefits, at a cost of just $5.8 billion.

    If the states doubled their 2030 renewable power commitment to 26%, this would yield $9.5 billion in climate benefits and $20.0 billion in health benefits, with a price tag of $9.1 billion.
    http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/...better-health/

  18. #1143
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Please don't just accept RJ's basic point that 100% renewables is not possible, or that it is too expensive. That, too, is untrue.
    Werd! BTV has had 100% renewable electricity for the past 4 years. Also haven't had a rate increase in a decade.

  19. #1144
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    410
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    No Trick Zone, wow, just wow.

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/40...rming-is-myth/

    The first time that Breitbart ran a NTZ based-story, numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves.

    Claim
    Hundreds of papers published in 2017 prove that global warming is a myth.

    Rating

    False
    There is zero analysis from NTZ in my link. It is simply screenshotting graphs and abstracts on papers about the MWP in 2019.

  20. #1145
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    410
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    Those windmills slow down the wind and cause warming... unless they're on a treadmill.
    https://www.instituteforenergyresear...rface-warming/

  21. #1146
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    410
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    I went looking back to see if his "charts" had and links, not many did, hmmmm...
    Post any of them you have an issue with an I'll give you a source.

  22. #1147
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    47,038
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    .
    what's that you're saying?

  23. #1148
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,382
    if wind power supplied all U.S. electricity demands[
    Seems legit LOL
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  24. #1149
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,750
    Talk about a biased source.

    https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...nergy_Research


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Profane View Post
    Keystone is fucking lame. But, deadly.

  25. #1150
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    410
    Quote Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick View Post
    None of that makes sense. You either start pushing towards a renewable energy future or you don’t.

    Economic suicide - Sky is falling much?. Sure maybe for coal fired power plants or something but not as a broad economy. That’s simply scaremongering bullshit.

    Of course it won’t happen immediately but if you don’t start working on it, then the time when 100% renewables are possible will simply be pushed X years down the road.

    Saving the money adaptation. So you answer is #2, ignore the possibility and take whatever comes.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I'm not going to do the energy debate again. It's already been discussed plenty in the thread. WMD and co. have a hard time realizing that there is a huge difference in the cost of a 100% non carbon renewable energy system with adequate backup compared solar and wind farms that provide a small % of the electricity to the grid that we see today.

    I'm not talking about coal plants. I'm talking about the entire economy. When you are going to spend trillions of dollars on infrastructure and have at energy prices 2x? 3x? 5x? 7x? for consumers (no one ever gives any estimates in these greenwashy plans), we are talking about immense economic repercussions.

    I've said it multiple times already, but I'll start taking non carbon renewables seriously when we can see an actual example of a city or county with 100% non carbon renewable energy. If renewables are so great why don't we see this already? There is huge demand for green energy. Surely Portland or Boulder or somewhere can show us how its done?

Posting Permissions

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