Climate Change has run its course@

[skookerasbil]

Holy crap... evidently the author has been checking in on the skeptics threads in the Environment section of the USMB!!

"All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers."


Climate Change Has Run Its Course

Like the author says, the message has clearly lost all of its vitality. As he says, it's on "life support".

For a few years in here now I have been posing the question, "Where is the science mattering in the real world?"
Never get a single response from a climate crusader. .

@www.whosnotwinning.com

 

[airplanemechanic]

You linked us to an article that you have to be a member of the WSJ to read.

 

[skookerasbil]

Of course, anybody who says this is at all related to President Trump possesses the political IQ of a handball. For 10 years now, lawmakers have shown zero interest in passing any kind of climate change legislation. The reason, obviously, is that constituents don't give a rat's ass. Like I've been saying, the science isn't mattering in the real world.

 

[BULLDOG]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

 

[skookerasbil]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Bar room banter.....a chat for progressives to have over a latte at the local Starbucks s0n.

If the whole world is so convinced climate change is real, why is absolutely nobody picking up their phone to call their representative to tell them to take action? For the past 10 years, no less!! Why is the Paris Treaty dead. Why is the EPA being trainwrecked as we speak? Why do green candidates consistently get their clocks cleaned in midterm elections? Why has climate change still not made an appearance has a debate topic at any presidential debate? Why do solar and wind power combined still only provide 6% of our electricity?

Oh right.... it's because everybody in the world is convinced climate change is real!!

Taking bows over a banner when your sentiments reflect a distinct minority = ghey

 

[toobfreak]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Everybody in the world except Christopher Columbus was convinced the Earth was flat and you would sail off the edge.

 

[skookerasbil]

Let's face it.... it is only social oddball progressives who celebrate walking around with a "KICK ME" sign hanging from their neck.

None can post up a single link showing us where the science is mattering in the real world!!

 

[BULLDOG]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Bar room banter.....a chat for progressives to have over a latte at the local Starbucks s0n.

If the whole world is so convinced climate change is real, why is absolutely nobody picking up their phone to call their representative to tell them to take action? For the past 10 years, no less!! Why is the Paris Treaty dead. Why is the EPA being trainwrecked as we speak? Why do green candidates consistently get their clocks cleaned in midterm elections? Why has climate change still not made an appearance has a debate topic at any presidential debate? Why do solar and wind power combined still only provide 6% of our electricity?

Oh right.... it's because everybody in the world is convinced climate change is real!!

Taking bows over a banner when your sentiments reflect a distinct minority = ghey

The Paris agreement is not dead. Every country in the world has acknowleged the problem and joined the agreement.

 

[skookerasbil]

Why will real Americans never relinquish their Second Amendment right? Simple answer.... because we realize we are sharing our world with a bunch of mental cases!

 

[Pogo]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Everybody in the world except Christopher Columbus was convinced the Earth was flat and you would sail off the edge.

Ummmm nnnnno they weren't. If that were the case the king and queen of Spain wouldn't have loaded him up, now would they.

>> During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent, despite fanciful depictions in art, such as the exterior of Hieronymus Bosch's famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[3]

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[4] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[5]

Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-Earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over biological evolution. Russell claims "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat", and ascribes popularization of the flat-Earth myth to histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving.[2][6][7] --- Myth of Flat Earth Belief​

Meahwhile in this neck of the wood there's landslides all around still being cleaned up after the wettest torrential rain month of May in recorded history, but that's perfectly normal, "s0n".

 

[skookerasbil]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Bar room banter.....a chat for progressives to have over a latte at the local Starbucks s0n.

If the whole world is so convinced climate change is real, why is absolutely nobody picking up their phone to call their representative to tell them to take action? For the past 10 years, no less!! Why is the Paris Treaty dead. Why is the EPA being trainwrecked as we speak? Why do green candidates consistently get their clocks cleaned in midterm elections? Why has climate change still not made an appearance has a debate topic at any presidential debate? Why do solar and wind power combined still only provide 6% of our electricity?

Oh right.... it's because everybody in the world is convinced climate change is real!!

Taking bows over a banner when your sentiments reflect a distinct minority = ghey

The Paris agreement is not dead. Every country in the world has acknowleged the problem and joined the agreement.

Oy.....

 

[skookerasbil]

Who else but a far-left progressive would take a discussion on how climate change is dead and turn it into a monologue on the Middle Ages?

 

[skookerasbil]

So how about that link s0ns?

C'mon now....dont be ghey.

 

[SavannahMann]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Not really. The problem, or perhaps I should say some of the problems is that the Climate Change movement was corrupted by the various other supporters. Women’s rights groups embraced Climate Change as part of their thing. If you did not support radical action on Climate Change, you were a total sexist as one example.

One of the big problems that I’ve pointed out for years is Nuclear Power. I’ve long argued that Nuclear Power is the Golden BB for Climate Change believers. You see, it produces zero Carbon Dioxide, and is reliable, sustainable, and with newer designs, much much safer.

This obvious answer has long been rejected out of hand by the Climate Change believers. They champion obviously incomplete theories in lieu of common sense answers. Worse, they do so while wrapping the Climate Change blanket around whatever they can.

The arguments against Nuclear are based upon older and less refined designs. Yet we are told that newer everything else is all we should ever consider. What I mean is newer batteries are somehow able to miracle their way through the current problems with inefficient energy storage. One of the things that nobody tells you is that recharging batteries is inefficient. It takes more energy to put power into the battery than you get in, and more to get it out than you actually can use.

Let’s use the bank account analogy. You go to deposit $100 in your bank account. Your bank charges you a buck and a half to put the money in your savings account. OK, that’s fine. Then every month the Bank charges you a two bucks to hold onto your money for you. This means if you don’t add any money to the account, it will eventually evaporate away in fees. Well you aren’t going to stand for that. So you take your money out, and it cost you another five bucks to get the money out of your account.

It cost energy to put power into the battery, as the battery sits, some of the energy is lost over time. Depending on the type of battery, this energy loss can be significant. When you decide to use the power in the battery, even more is lost.

Gasoline or Diesel engines are also subject to similar problems. Gasoline and Diesel evaporate slowly. The Gas Tank or Fuel Tank have vents to manage this. It cost more energy to start an engine than it takes to keep it running providing it idles for less than a minute. That is why many makers have included “stop and start” tech to their cars. When you stop at a light, the engine automatically shuts down, and when you touch the gas, the engine restarts automatically, and engages the transmission all in a second or two.

It is where Hybrids get their efficiency, the stop and start nature of city driving. There the engine stays off if the battery is full enough, and the rate of acceleration is mild enough.

Nuclear is the obvious answer, and the Climate Change folks reject it out of hand. We aren’t even allowed to explore newer designs that could incorporate the safety lessons that we have learned over the decades. We aren’t even allowed to consider new designs that would actually use the radioactive waste that has been generated. One of the newer designs that are possible is one that would literally keep running for a couple centuries off of existing supplies of nuclear waste.

Nope. Not going to happen.

It is as if we were only allowed to discuss the safety of flying by using the Wright Flyer as the only airplane that ever existed. We can’t learn from it, improve it, and increase the safety and reliablility. Nope, flying is dangerous, look at the Wright Flyer and how many people have died.

Instead of being one of the safest means of travel, it would be listed as the most dangerous because we aren’t allowed to consider any improvements, or progress, or evolution if you prefer on the issue.

 

[skookerasbil]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Not really. The problem, or perhaps I should say some of the problems is that the Climate Change movement was corrupted by the various other supporters. Women’s rights groups embraced Climate Change as part of their thing. If you did not support radical action on Climate Change, you were a total sexist as one example.

One of the big problems that I’ve pointed out for years is Nuclear Power. I’ve long argued that Nuclear Power is the Golden BB for Climate Change believers. You see, it produces zero Carbon Dioxide, and is reliable, sustainable, and with newer designs, much much safer.

This obvious answer has long been rejected out of hand by the Climate Change believers. They champion obviously incomplete theories in lieu of common sense answers. Worse, they do so while wrapping the Climate Change blanket around whatever they can.

The arguments against Nuclear are based upon older and less refined designs. Yet we are told that newer everything else is all we should ever consider. What I mean is newer batteries are somehow able to miracle their way through the current problems with inefficient energy storage. One of the things that nobody tells you is that recharging batteries is inefficient. It takes more energy to put power into the battery than you get in, and more to get it out than you actually can use.

Let’s use the bank account analogy. You go to deposit $100 in your bank account. Your bank charges you a buck and a half to put the money in your savings account. OK, that’s fine. Then every month the Bank charges you a two bucks to hold onto your money for you. This means if you don’t add any money to the account, it will eventually evaporate away in fees. Well you aren’t going to stand for that. So you take your money out, and it cost you another five bucks to get the money out of your account.

It cost energy to put power into the battery, as the battery sits, some of the energy is lost over time. Depending on the type of battery, this energy loss can be significant. When you decide to use the power in the battery, even more is lost.

Gasoline or Diesel engines are also subject to similar problems. Gasoline and Diesel evaporate slowly. The Gas Tank or Fuel Tank have vents to manage this. It cost more energy to start an engine than it takes to keep it running providing it idles for less than a minute. That is why many makers have included “stop and start” tech to their cars. When you stop at a light, the engine automatically shuts down, and when you touch the gas, the engine restarts automatically, and engages the transmission all in a second or two.

It is where Hybrids get their efficiency, the stop and start nature of city driving. There the engine stays off if the battery is full enough, and the rate of acceleration is mild enough.

Nuclear is the obvious answer, and the Climate Change folks reject it out of hand. We aren’t even allowed to explore newer designs that could incorporate the safety lessons that we have learned over the decades. We aren’t even allowed to consider new designs that would actually use the radioactive waste that has been generated. One of the newer designs that are possible is one that would literally keep running for a couple centuries off of existing supplies of nuclear waste.

Nope. Not going to happen.

It is as if we were only allowed to discuss the safety of flying by using the Wright Flyer as the only airplane that ever existed. We can’t learn from it, improve it, and increase the safety and reliablility. Nope, flying is dangerous, look at the Wright Flyer and how many people have died.

Instead of being one of the safest means of travel, it would be listed as the most dangerous because we aren’t allowed to consider any improvements, or progress, or evolution if you prefer on the issue.

Your point on climate change being subjected to the back seat of left wing politics has clearly played a role in its demise. The other special interest groups on the left are given higher priority in campaign platforms....its not even close. Of course, $$ contributions a big factor....your rank and file DUM voter isn't sending money hoping the candidate wins on the issue of climate change. There are other issues more near and dear to their heart. Too, voters have figured out that there is a whole army of climate change industry sheisters that have attached themselves to the "science"....voters don't like that especially when the same voters hate capitalism in the first place. Right now, climate change is like a boat floating around in the middle of the sea with no motor and no anchor either. Its a political zero in modern day DUM politics....a peripheral issue in almost every county except the handful of radical k00k ones.

Not sure about the nuclear point...most alarmists in here do not advocate for nuclear. I'm a skeptic and am strongly against nuclear power. I don't think we have a clue yet about the long term effects from Fukishima and will never get the full account of it either.

 

[SavannahMann]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Not really. The problem, or perhaps I should say some of the problems is that the Climate Change movement was corrupted by the various other supporters. Women’s rights groups embraced Climate Change as part of their thing. If you did not support radical action on Climate Change, you were a total sexist as one example.

One of the big problems that I’ve pointed out for years is Nuclear Power. I’ve long argued that Nuclear Power is the Golden BB for Climate Change believers. You see, it produces zero Carbon Dioxide, and is reliable, sustainable, and with newer designs, much much safer.

This obvious answer has long been rejected out of hand by the Climate Change believers. They champion obviously incomplete theories in lieu of common sense answers. Worse, they do so while wrapping the Climate Change blanket around whatever they can.

The arguments against Nuclear are based upon older and less refined designs. Yet we are told that newer everything else is all we should ever consider. What I mean is newer batteries are somehow able to miracle their way through the current problems with inefficient energy storage. One of the things that nobody tells you is that recharging batteries is inefficient. It takes more energy to put power into the battery than you get in, and more to get it out than you actually can use.

Let’s use the bank account analogy. You go to deposit $100 in your bank account. Your bank charges you a buck and a half to put the money in your savings account. OK, that’s fine. Then every month the Bank charges you a two bucks to hold onto your money for you. This means if you don’t add any money to the account, it will eventually evaporate away in fees. Well you aren’t going to stand for that. So you take your money out, and it cost you another five bucks to get the money out of your account.

It cost energy to put power into the battery, as the battery sits, some of the energy is lost over time. Depending on the type of battery, this energy loss can be significant. When you decide to use the power in the battery, even more is lost.

Gasoline or Diesel engines are also subject to similar problems. Gasoline and Diesel evaporate slowly. The Gas Tank or Fuel Tank have vents to manage this. It cost more energy to start an engine than it takes to keep it running providing it idles for less than a minute. That is why many makers have included “stop and start” tech to their cars. When you stop at a light, the engine automatically shuts down, and when you touch the gas, the engine restarts automatically, and engages the transmission all in a second or two.

It is where Hybrids get their efficiency, the stop and start nature of city driving. There the engine stays off if the battery is full enough, and the rate of acceleration is mild enough.

Nuclear is the obvious answer, and the Climate Change folks reject it out of hand. We aren’t even allowed to explore newer designs that could incorporate the safety lessons that we have learned over the decades. We aren’t even allowed to consider new designs that would actually use the radioactive waste that has been generated. One of the newer designs that are possible is one that would literally keep running for a couple centuries off of existing supplies of nuclear waste.

Nope. Not going to happen.

It is as if we were only allowed to discuss the safety of flying by using the Wright Flyer as the only airplane that ever existed. We can’t learn from it, improve it, and increase the safety and reliablility. Nope, flying is dangerous, look at the Wright Flyer and how many people have died.

Instead of being one of the safest means of travel, it would be listed as the most dangerous because we aren’t allowed to consider any improvements, or progress, or evolution if you prefer on the issue.

Your point on climate change being subjected to the back seat of left wing politics has clearly played a role in its demise. The other special interest groups on the left are given higher priority in campaign platforms....its not even close. Of course, $$ contributions a big factor....your rank and file DUM voter isn't sending money hoping the candidate wins on the issue of climate change. There are other issues more near and dear to their heart. Too, voters have figured out that there is a whole army of climate change industry sheisters that have attached themselves to the "science"....voters don't like that especially when the same voters hate capitalism in the first place. Right now, climate change is like a boat floating around in the middle of the sea with no motor and no anchor either. Its a political zero in modern day DUM politics....a peripheral issue in almost every county except the handful of radical k00k ones.

Not sure about the nuclear point...most alarmists in here do not advocate for nuclear. I'm a skeptic and am strongly against nuclear power. I don't think we have a clue yet about the long term effects from Fukishima and will never get the full account of it either.

Basing Nuclear policy on a design from the 1950’s, which Fukushima was, is like basing automobile safety on the 57 Chevy. No seatbelts, no airbags, no crumple zones, no reinforced and puncture resistant gas tank. All the safety features we take for granted just aren’t there.

What if I told you that a design exists right now that would use nuclear waste as the fuel, and if it lost power as Fukushima did it was actually cool down and automatically shut down safely with zero release of any radiation? That design exists. That design exists and we could be building them right now. At the end you have deprecated uranium as the waste product. Not the safest material, but certainly not nearly as dangerous as what we have buried in the ground now.

Just as modern cars are infinitely more safe than cars from the 1950’s, and airplanes are safer and more reliable, so are modern designed reactors. But we don’t consider that fact. It is like someone arguing that they played Pong once, and don’t see the value of computer simulations because it just wasn’t all that impressive.

This is a link to the Generation IV reactors that are just about ready to have construction started. Generation IV reactor - Wikipedia

Most of the Reactors in use now are Gen II or Gen III. Better, but still have a lot of room for improvement. Gen IV is much better than the designs like Fukushima, just as the safety features of a modern car are significantly better than the safest features of a car from 1950’s.

 

[BULLDOG]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Not really. The problem, or perhaps I should say some of the problems is that the Climate Change movement was corrupted by the various other supporters. Women’s rights groups embraced Climate Change as part of their thing. If you did not support radical action on Climate Change, you were a total sexist as one example.

One of the big problems that I’ve pointed out for years is Nuclear Power. I’ve long argued that Nuclear Power is the Golden BB for Climate Change believers. You see, it produces zero Carbon Dioxide, and is reliable, sustainable, and with newer designs, much much safer.

This obvious answer has long been rejected out of hand by the Climate Change believers. They champion obviously incomplete theories in lieu of common sense answers. Worse, they do so while wrapping the Climate Change blanket around whatever they can.

The arguments against Nuclear are based upon older and less refined designs. Yet we are told that newer everything else is all we should ever consider. What I mean is newer batteries are somehow able to miracle their way through the current problems with inefficient energy storage. One of the things that nobody tells you is that recharging batteries is inefficient. It takes more energy to put power into the battery than you get in, and more to get it out than you actually can use.

Let’s use the bank account analogy. You go to deposit $100 in your bank account. Your bank charges you a buck and a half to put the money in your savings account. OK, that’s fine. Then every month the Bank charges you a two bucks to hold onto your money for you. This means if you don’t add any money to the account, it will eventually evaporate away in fees. Well you aren’t going to stand for that. So you take your money out, and it cost you another five bucks to get the money out of your account.

It cost energy to put power into the battery, as the battery sits, some of the energy is lost over time. Depending on the type of battery, this energy loss can be significant. When you decide to use the power in the battery, even more is lost.

Gasoline or Diesel engines are also subject to similar problems. Gasoline and Diesel evaporate slowly. The Gas Tank or Fuel Tank have vents to manage this. It cost more energy to start an engine than it takes to keep it running providing it idles for less than a minute. That is why many makers have included “stop and start” tech to their cars. When you stop at a light, the engine automatically shuts down, and when you touch the gas, the engine restarts automatically, and engages the transmission all in a second or two.

It is where Hybrids get their efficiency, the stop and start nature of city driving. There the engine stays off if the battery is full enough, and the rate of acceleration is mild enough.

Nuclear is the obvious answer, and the Climate Change folks reject it out of hand. We aren’t even allowed to explore newer designs that could incorporate the safety lessons that we have learned over the decades. We aren’t even allowed to consider new designs that would actually use the radioactive waste that has been generated. One of the newer designs that are possible is one that would literally keep running for a couple centuries off of existing supplies of nuclear waste.

Nope. Not going to happen.

It is as if we were only allowed to discuss the safety of flying by using the Wright Flyer as the only airplane that ever existed. We can’t learn from it, improve it, and increase the safety and reliablility. Nope, flying is dangerous, look at the Wright Flyer and how many people have died.

Instead of being one of the safest means of travel, it would be listed as the most dangerous because we aren’t allowed to consider any improvements, or progress, or evolution if you prefer on the issue.

Your point on climate change being subjected to the back seat of left wing politics has clearly played a role in its demise. The other special interest groups on the left are given higher priority in campaign platforms....its not even close. Of course, $$ contributions a big factor....your rank and file DUM voter isn't sending money hoping the candidate wins on the issue of climate change. There are other issues more near and dear to their heart. Too, voters have figured out that there is a whole army of climate change industry sheisters that have attached themselves to the "science"....voters don't like that especially when the same voters hate capitalism in the first place. Right now, climate change is like a boat floating around in the middle of the sea with no motor and no anchor either. Its a political zero in modern day DUM politics....a peripheral issue in almost every county except the handful of radical k00k ones.

Not sure about the nuclear point...most alarmists in here do not advocate for nuclear. I'm a skeptic and am strongly against nuclear power. I don't think we have a clue yet about the long term effects from Fukishima and will never get the full account of it either.

Got it. You see it as nothing more than a Democratic issue, so you oppose it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Everybody in the world except Christopher Columbus was convinced the Earth was flat and you would sail off the edge.

Ummmm nnnnno they weren't. If that were the case the king and queen of Spain wouldn't have loaded him up, now would they.

>> During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent, despite fanciful depictions in art, such as the exterior of Hieronymus Bosch's famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[3]

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[4] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[5]

Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-Earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over biological evolution. Russell claims "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat", and ascribes popularization of the flat-Earth myth to histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving.[2][6][7] --- Myth of Flat Earth Belief​

Meahwhile in this neck of the wood there's landslides all around still being cleaned up after the wettest torrential rain month of May in recorded history, but that's perfectly normal, "s0n".

Excepting Toob, of course. LOL People like him love to repeat lies and silly tales that are simply not true.

As the number of extreme weather events impact people's lives, and destroy their possessions they will come to accept that they have been lied to and misled for the energy companies profits, even as they economic situation becomes worse because of the actions of those companies.

 

[Old Rocks]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Not really. The problem, or perhaps I should say some of the problems is that the Climate Change movement was corrupted by the various other supporters. Women’s rights groups embraced Climate Change as part of their thing. If you did not support radical action on Climate Change, you were a total sexist as one example.

One of the big problems that I’ve pointed out for years is Nuclear Power. I’ve long argued that Nuclear Power is the Golden BB for Climate Change believers. You see, it produces zero Carbon Dioxide, and is reliable, sustainable, and with newer designs, much much safer.

This obvious answer has long been rejected out of hand by the Climate Change believers. They champion obviously incomplete theories in lieu of common sense answers. Worse, they do so while wrapping the Climate Change blanket around whatever they can.

The arguments against Nuclear are based upon older and less refined designs. Yet we are told that newer everything else is all we should ever consider. What I mean is newer batteries are somehow able to miracle their way through the current problems with inefficient energy storage. One of the things that nobody tells you is that recharging batteries is inefficient. It takes more energy to put power into the battery than you get in, and more to get it out than you actually can use.

Let’s use the bank account analogy. You go to deposit $100 in your bank account. Your bank charges you a buck and a half to put the money in your savings account. OK, that’s fine. Then every month the Bank charges you a two bucks to hold onto your money for you. This means if you don’t add any money to the account, it will eventually evaporate away in fees. Well you aren’t going to stand for that. So you take your money out, and it cost you another five bucks to get the money out of your account.

It cost energy to put power into the battery, as the battery sits, some of the energy is lost over time. Depending on the type of battery, this energy loss can be significant. When you decide to use the power in the battery, even more is lost.

Gasoline or Diesel engines are also subject to similar problems. Gasoline and Diesel evaporate slowly. The Gas Tank or Fuel Tank have vents to manage this. It cost more energy to start an engine than it takes to keep it running providing it idles for less than a minute. That is why many makers have included “stop and start” tech to their cars. When you stop at a light, the engine automatically shuts down, and when you touch the gas, the engine restarts automatically, and engages the transmission all in a second or two.

It is where Hybrids get their efficiency, the stop and start nature of city driving. There the engine stays off if the battery is full enough, and the rate of acceleration is mild enough.

Nuclear is the obvious answer, and the Climate Change folks reject it out of hand. We aren’t even allowed to explore newer designs that could incorporate the safety lessons that we have learned over the decades. We aren’t even allowed to consider new designs that would actually use the radioactive waste that has been generated. One of the newer designs that are possible is one that would literally keep running for a couple centuries off of existing supplies of nuclear waste.

Nope. Not going to happen.

It is as if we were only allowed to discuss the safety of flying by using the Wright Flyer as the only airplane that ever existed. We can’t learn from it, improve it, and increase the safety and reliablility. Nope, flying is dangerous, look at the Wright Flyer and how many people have died.

Instead of being one of the safest means of travel, it would be listed as the most dangerous because we aren’t allowed to consider any improvements, or progress, or evolution if you prefer on the issue.

Your point on climate change being subjected to the back seat of left wing politics has clearly played a role in its demise. The other special interest groups on the left are given higher priority in campaign platforms....its not even close. Of course, $$ contributions a big factor....your rank and file DUM voter isn't sending money hoping the candidate wins on the issue of climate change. There are other issues more near and dear to their heart. Too, voters have figured out that there is a whole army of climate change industry sheisters that have attached themselves to the "science"....voters don't like that especially when the same voters hate capitalism in the first place. Right now, climate change is like a boat floating around in the middle of the sea with no motor and no anchor either. Its a political zero in modern day DUM politics....a peripheral issue in almost every county except the handful of radical k00k ones.

Not sure about the nuclear point...most alarmists in here do not advocate for nuclear. I'm a skeptic and am strongly against nuclear power. I don't think we have a clue yet about the long term effects from Fukishima and will never get the full account of it either.

Basing Nuclear policy on a design from the 1950’s, which Fukushima was, is like basing automobile safety on the 57 Chevy. No seatbelts, no airbags, no crumple zones, no reinforced and puncture resistant gas tank. All the safety features we take for granted just aren’t there.

What if I told you that a design exists right now that would use nuclear waste as the fuel, and if it lost power as Fukushima did it was actually cool down and automatically shut down safely with zero release of any radiation? That design exists. That design exists and we could be building them right now. At the end you have deprecated uranium as the waste product. Not the safest material, but certainly not nearly as dangerous as what we have buried in the ground now.

Just as modern cars are infinitely more safe than cars from the 1950’s, and airplanes are safer and more reliable, so are modern designed reactors. But we don’t consider that fact. It is like someone arguing that they played Pong once, and don’t see the value of computer simulations because it just wasn’t all that impressive.

This is a link to the Generation IV reactors that are just about ready to have construction started. Generation IV reactor - Wikipedia

View attachment 196757

Most of the Reactors in use now are Gen II or Gen III. Better, but still have a lot of room for improvement. Gen IV is much better than the designs like Fukushima, just as the safety features of a modern car are significantly better than the safest features of a car from 1950’s.

And they are still far too expensive.

 

[skookerasbil]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Not really. The problem, or perhaps I should say some of the problems is that the Climate Change movement was corrupted by the various other supporters. Women’s rights groups embraced Climate Change as part of their thing. If you did not support radical action on Climate Change, you were a total sexist as one example.

One of the big problems that I’ve pointed out for years is Nuclear Power. I’ve long argued that Nuclear Power is the Golden BB for Climate Change believers. You see, it produces zero Carbon Dioxide, and is reliable, sustainable, and with newer designs, much much safer.

This obvious answer has long been rejected out of hand by the Climate Change believers. They champion obviously incomplete theories in lieu of common sense answers. Worse, they do so while wrapping the Climate Change blanket around whatever they can.

The arguments against Nuclear are based upon older and less refined designs. Yet we are told that newer everything else is all we should ever consider. What I mean is newer batteries are somehow able to miracle their way through the current problems with inefficient energy storage. One of the things that nobody tells you is that recharging batteries is inefficient. It takes more energy to put power into the battery than you get in, and more to get it out than you actually can use.

Let’s use the bank account analogy. You go to deposit $100 in your bank account. Your bank charges you a buck and a half to put the money in your savings account. OK, that’s fine. Then every month the Bank charges you a two bucks to hold onto your money for you. This means if you don’t add any money to the account, it will eventually evaporate away in fees. Well you aren’t going to stand for that. So you take your money out, and it cost you another five bucks to get the money out of your account.

It cost energy to put power into the battery, as the battery sits, some of the energy is lost over time. Depending on the type of battery, this energy loss can be significant. When you decide to use the power in the battery, even more is lost.

Gasoline or Diesel engines are also subject to similar problems. Gasoline and Diesel evaporate slowly. The Gas Tank or Fuel Tank have vents to manage this. It cost more energy to start an engine than it takes to keep it running providing it idles for less than a minute. That is why many makers have included “stop and start” tech to their cars. When you stop at a light, the engine automatically shuts down, and when you touch the gas, the engine restarts automatically, and engages the transmission all in a second or two.

It is where Hybrids get their efficiency, the stop and start nature of city driving. There the engine stays off if the battery is full enough, and the rate of acceleration is mild enough.

Nuclear is the obvious answer, and the Climate Change folks reject it out of hand. We aren’t even allowed to explore newer designs that could incorporate the safety lessons that we have learned over the decades. We aren’t even allowed to consider new designs that would actually use the radioactive waste that has been generated. One of the newer designs that are possible is one that would literally keep running for a couple centuries off of existing supplies of nuclear waste.

Nope. Not going to happen.

It is as if we were only allowed to discuss the safety of flying by using the Wright Flyer as the only airplane that ever existed. We can’t learn from it, improve it, and increase the safety and reliablility. Nope, flying is dangerous, look at the Wright Flyer and how many people have died.

Instead of being one of the safest means of travel, it would be listed as the most dangerous because we aren’t allowed to consider any improvements, or progress, or evolution if you prefer on the issue.

Your point on climate change being subjected to the back seat of left wing politics has clearly played a role in its demise. The other special interest groups on the left are given higher priority in campaign platforms....its not even close. Of course, $$ contributions a big factor....your rank and file DUM voter isn't sending money hoping the candidate wins on the issue of climate change. There are other issues more near and dear to their heart. Too, voters have figured out that there is a whole army of climate change industry sheisters that have attached themselves to the "science"....voters don't like that especially when the same voters hate capitalism in the first place. Right now, climate change is like a boat floating around in the middle of the sea with no motor and no anchor either. Its a political zero in modern day DUM politics....a peripheral issue in almost every county except the handful of radical k00k ones.

Not sure about the nuclear point...most alarmists in here do not advocate for nuclear. I'm a skeptic and am strongly against nuclear power. I don't think we have a clue yet about the long term effects from Fukishima and will never get the full account of it either.

Got it. You see it as nothing more than a Democratic issue, so you oppose it.

Analysis disconnect.

Nobody has shown any propensity to open their wallets to fight climate change after 25 years of the religion lobbing bombs. A thorn in the sides of uber-progressives....actually, more like a massive bumpy cucumber but I digress....

Ten years from now, progressives will be sitting in front of the same ghey banner they do today ( and did 10 years ago ). And still nobody will be taking any more than a token gesture in any fight against climate change. Progressives, supposedly the smartest people in the room, still spike the football in front of a science club billboard, but no place else. In the real world, nobody is worrying about the 3mm rise in the ocean!!