CDZ The American Republican Denial of Climate change.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Quote

This winter's biggest sea ice extent was 431,000 miles less than the 30-year average. That's the size of Texas and California combined.

Records go back to 1979 when satellites started measuring sea ice.

Center scientist Julienne Stroeve says winter temperatures over the North Pole were 16 degrees warmer than normal, while it was 4 to 11 degrees warmer than normal elsewhere over the Arctic.

End Quote

Records go back to 1979 when satellites started measuring sea ice.

The records go that far back?
I guess that's all the proof we need to justify trillions in wind power.

 

[Boston1]

Renewables are always a good idea but the facts are that within the instrument record our effect on the climate is becoming more and more pronounced every year.

The need to correct that adverse side effect is obvious

To most of us that is ;--)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Renewables are always a good idea but the facts are that within the instrument record our effect on the climate is becoming more and more pronounced every year.

The need to correct that adverse side effect is obvious

To most of us that is ;--)

Renewables are always a good idea

Yes, even if they're more expensive and less reliable.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

At this point is there really any excuse to deny mankind has brought this on itself ?

Is it Global warming or climate change?

 

[Boston1]

The layman terminology is not relevant.

And what makes you think renewables are less reliable ?

I would think the least reliable energy source was the finite one that certain companies control without full disclosure as to just how much we might have left and how soon we need to prepare to make a switch to more reliable renewables ;--)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The layman terminology is not relevant.

And what makes you think renewables are less reliable ?

I would think the least reliable energy source was the finite one that certain companies control without full disclosure as to just how much we might have left and how soon we need to prepare to make a switch to more reliable renewables ;--)

And what makes you think renewables are less reliable ?

The Sun usually sets. The wind doesn't always blow.
What makes you think they are just as reliable as nuclear, coal or natural gas?

 

[Boston1]

Oh thats easy.

Nuclear has been frighteningly unreliable

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...21xxuMFbv0HxNqb5g&bvm=bv.118353311,bs.2,d.amc

Quote

What fills the energy gap while these "reliable" nuclear reactors are shut down?

Belgium is having to rely on electricity from its neighbours. So much for nuclear power giving the country energy security.

In the UK, things are much more optimistic. Renewable energy has come to the rescue. "Demand is low at this time of year, and a lot of wind power is being generated right now," said the UK's National Grid. Electricity supplies have been unaffected.

What lessons can we learn here?

Firstly, the idea that nuclear power is a reliable energy source that offers energy security is a myth, particularly in a world where aging nuclear reactors are coming to the end of their lives.

Secondly, we see a reversal of the view that renewables need to be supported by nuclear power. Although nuclear and wind power do not have the same generation characteristics, nuclear reactors now needing to lean on renewables means the nuclear industry has a big problem.

More and more nuclear reactors will be closing in the coming years as they reach retirement age. The nuclear industry simply can't build replacement reactors quickly or cheaply enough to fill the gap.

That's a gap that renewables and energy efficiency can exploit safely and reliably. As the recently released 2014 World Nuclear Industry Status Report says…

End Quote

As for Coal and natural gas they are just more of the same carbon based fossil fuel sources. Exactly the source of the problem in the first place.

Your essentially advocating for the reliability of the problem. When the rest of the world recognizes the need for a reliable solution. Which has been found in renewables.

While the naysayers point out that the sun is only shining half the time. Its always shining somewhere ;--) Same for the wind. The worlds wind patterns are actually quite steady.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh thats easy.

Nuclear has been frighteningly unreliable

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjg9Nir1OTLAhUD72MKHa3sD1UQFggiMAE&url=http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/nuclear-power-reliably-unreliable/blog/50384/&usg=AFQjCNHO1Z05W2ec6MdP0MpeDYOyPKePwQ&sig2=OCfLj21xxuMFbv0HxNqb5g&bvm=bv.118353311,bs.2,d.amc

Quote

What fills the energy gap while these "reliable" nuclear reactors are shut down?

Belgium is having to rely on electricity from its neighbours. So much for nuclear power giving the country energy security.

In the UK, things are much more optimistic. Renewable energy has come to the rescue. "Demand is low at this time of year, and a lot of wind power is being generated right now," said the UK's National Grid. Electricity supplies have been unaffected.

What lessons can we learn here?

Firstly, the idea that nuclear power is a reliable energy source that offers energy security is a myth, particularly in a world where aging nuclear reactors are coming to the end of their lives.

Secondly, we see a reversal of the view that renewables need to be supported by nuclear power. Although nuclear and wind power do not have the same generation characteristics, nuclear reactors now needing to lean on renewables means the nuclear industry has a big problem.

More and more nuclear reactors will be closing in the coming years as they reach retirement age. The nuclear industry simply can't build replacement reactors quickly or cheaply enough to fill the gap.

That's a gap that renewables and energy efficiency can exploit safely and reliably. As the recently released 2014 World Nuclear Industry Status Report says…

End Quote

As for Coal and natural gas they are just more of the same carbon based fossil fuel sources. Exactly the source of the problem in the first place.

Your essentially advocating for the reliability of the problem. When the rest of the world recognizes the need for a reliable solution. Which has been found in renewables.

While the naysayers point out that the sun is only shining half the time. Its always shining somewhere ;--) Same for the wind. The worlds wind patterns are actually quite steady.

Nuclear has been frighteningly unreliable

Frighteningly? Can you quantify that? Use percentages.

Secondly, we see a reversal of the view that renewables need to be supported by nuclear power.

They can also be supported by nat gas and coal.

More and more nuclear reactors will be closing in the coming years as they reach retirement age.

So build more.

As for Coal and natural gas they are just more of the same carbon based fossil fuel sources.

Yes, reliable fossil fuels are very useful.

Your essentially advocating for the reliability of the problem.

Yes, an unreliable energy source is not much of a solution.

While the naysayers point out that the sun is only shining half the time. Its always shining somewhere

Only an idiot thinks a source of energy on the other side of the world is helpful.

 

[Boston1]

11 nuclear melt down and disasters

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Mur8tqDWt42OOj8nA&bvm=bv.118353311,bs.2,d.amc

and

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...lUkEQES_TsAw2PhaA&bvm=bv.118353311,bs.2,d.amc

Can you say Fukushima

 

[Boston1]

Barrier Reef hit by 'worst' bleaching

Quote

The National Coral Bleaching Taskforce says 95% of reefs from Cairns to Papua New Guinea are now severely bleached.

It says only four reefs out of 520 have no evidence of bleaching.

End Quote

 

[OldLady]

Well thats a lot of denial for just a couple posts. But I don't see much rational thought involved in any of it.

So do any of you have any actual reasons for denying climate shift ?

I will deny the theory of climate change.

Show me the weather records for 200,000 years ago, what was the high temperature in my town? How bout 20,000 years ago, No, then just 2,000 years back then. Well, you can do 200 or so in some places...

Sure, we have done damage, just as damage was done when a rogue lightning strike started a half a continent fire back when the t-rex was still eating meat. What? there was no such fire? How do you know, have you looked? How was the climate after the fire?

How do we know that the earth is not in a state of change that happens every 20,000 years, there might be nothing we can do about it, or there might, but theories without any actual facts, is just a waste of many people's time, and for others, it's scary as hell, and for some it's their reason for living.

Not being a scientist, I give scientists the benefit of the doubt, generally, on what they've found. Particularly when the vast majority of them agree. However, yesterday I read an article about research into ice cores from Antarctica which have shown the planet used to go through a warming/cooling cycle every 100,000 years. Until 100,000 years ago when the cycle sped up to every 40,000 years. Why is that? Was there a civilization spewing fossil fuel pollution into the atmosphere 100,000 years ago? Makes me wonder if there is more to it than we currently understand.
That being said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to engage in practices that do not poison or pollute our planet. It should be a given in any undertaking. The problem seems to be industries that are making megabucks wanting to continue business as usual; they are spouting a lot of half truths that people like me, who aren't scientists, believe because they don't know any better. As usual, everything comes down to $$$ in this world, doesn't it? Nothing more important. Quite sad.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well thats a lot of denial for just a couple posts. But I don't see much rational thought involved in any of it.

So do any of you have any actual reasons for denying climate shift ?

I will deny the theory of climate change.

Show me the weather records for 200,000 years ago, what was the high temperature in my town? How bout 20,000 years ago, No, then just 2,000 years back then. Well, you can do 200 or so in some places...

Sure, we have done damage, just as damage was done when a rogue lightning strike started a half a continent fire back when the t-rex was still eating meat. What? there was no such fire? How do you know, have you looked? How was the climate after the fire?

How do we know that the earth is not in a state of change that happens every 20,000 years, there might be nothing we can do about it, or there might, but theories without any actual facts, is just a waste of many people's time, and for others, it's scary as hell, and for some it's their reason for living.

Not being a scientist, I give scientists the benefit of the doubt, generally, on what they've found. Particularly when the vast majority of them agree. However, yesterday I read an article about research into ice cores from Antarctica which have shown the planet used to go through a warming/cooling cycle every 100,000 years. Until 100,000 years ago when the cycle sped up to every 40,000 years. Why is that? Was there a civilization spewing fossil fuel pollution into the atmosphere 100,000 years ago? Makes me wonder if there is more to it than we currently understand.
That being said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to engage in practices that do not poison or pollute our planet. It should be a given in any undertaking. The problem seems to be industries that are making megabucks wanting to continue business as usual; they are spouting a lot of half truths that people like me, who aren't scientists, believe because they don't know any better. As usual, everything comes down to $$$ in this world, doesn't it? Nothing more important. Quite sad.

The problem seems to be industries that are making megabucks wanting to continue business as usual;

Everyone who benefits from fossil fuels to eat, live, thrive would prefer to continue using fossil fuels.
Especially in places where more expensive, less reliable, "green energy" would mean starvation and death.

As usual, everything comes down to $$$ in this world, doesn't it?

And using reliable energy to keep your family alive.

 

[Boston1]

Not even close.

The science leads where the science leads. No self respecting scientist follows the money, they follow discovery and the scientific method.

Which in this case is indisputable.

We are totally screwing up the atmospheric chemistry and the consequences of that fact are catastrophic.

Leading the vast majority of the scientific community to agree that steps must be taken immediately to reduce and eventually repair the damage done so far.

 

[OldLady]

Well thats a lot of denial for just a couple posts. But I don't see much rational thought involved in any of it.

So do any of you have any actual reasons for denying climate shift ?

I will deny the theory of climate change.

Show me the weather records for 200,000 years ago, what was the high temperature in my town? How bout 20,000 years ago, No, then just 2,000 years back then. Well, you can do 200 or so in some places...

Sure, we have done damage, just as damage was done when a rogue lightning strike started a half a continent fire back when the t-rex was still eating meat. What? there was no such fire? How do you know, have you looked? How was the climate after the fire?

How do we know that the earth is not in a state of change that happens every 20,000 years, there might be nothing we can do about it, or there might, but theories without any actual facts, is just a waste of many people's time, and for others, it's scary as hell, and for some it's their reason for living.

Not being a scientist, I give scientists the benefit of the doubt, generally, on what they've found. Particularly when the vast majority of them agree. However, yesterday I read an article about research into ice cores from Antarctica which have shown the planet used to go through a warming/cooling cycle every 100,000 years. Until 100,000 years ago when the cycle sped up to every 40,000 years. Why is that? Was there a civilization spewing fossil fuel pollution into the atmosphere 100,000 years ago? Makes me wonder if there is more to it than we currently understand.
That being said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to engage in practices that do not poison or pollute our planet. It should be a given in any undertaking. The problem seems to be industries that are making megabucks wanting to continue business as usual; they are spouting a lot of half truths that people like me, who aren't scientists, believe because they don't know any better. As usual, everything comes down to $$$ in this world, doesn't it? Nothing more important. Quite sad.

The problem seems to be industries that are making megabucks wanting to continue business as usual;

Everyone who benefits from fossil fuels to eat, live, thrive would prefer to continue using fossil fuels.
Especially in places where more expensive, less reliable, "green energy" would mean starvation and death.

As usual, everything comes down to $$$ in this world, doesn't it?

And using reliable energy to keep your family alive.

We can do better by finding innovative, less polluting ways to let all of us continue to thrive. Those attempts are being fought by those getting rich on fossil fuels. We've only got one planet. The scientists are saying if we continue burning fossil fuels at the rate we are now, none of us will be thriving for long. I guess it's whether one looks at well being in the short term or the long term.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well thats a lot of denial for just a couple posts. But I don't see much rational thought involved in any of it.

So do any of you have any actual reasons for denying climate shift ?

I will deny the theory of climate change.

Show me the weather records for 200,000 years ago, what was the high temperature in my town? How bout 20,000 years ago, No, then just 2,000 years back then. Well, you can do 200 or so in some places...

Sure, we have done damage, just as damage was done when a rogue lightning strike started a half a continent fire back when the t-rex was still eating meat. What? there was no such fire? How do you know, have you looked? How was the climate after the fire?

How do we know that the earth is not in a state of change that happens every 20,000 years, there might be nothing we can do about it, or there might, but theories without any actual facts, is just a waste of many people's time, and for others, it's scary as hell, and for some it's their reason for living.

Not being a scientist, I give scientists the benefit of the doubt, generally, on what they've found. Particularly when the vast majority of them agree. However, yesterday I read an article about research into ice cores from Antarctica which have shown the planet used to go through a warming/cooling cycle every 100,000 years. Until 100,000 years ago when the cycle sped up to every 40,000 years. Why is that? Was there a civilization spewing fossil fuel pollution into the atmosphere 100,000 years ago? Makes me wonder if there is more to it than we currently understand.
That being said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to engage in practices that do not poison or pollute our planet. It should be a given in any undertaking. The problem seems to be industries that are making megabucks wanting to continue business as usual; they are spouting a lot of half truths that people like me, who aren't scientists, believe because they don't know any better. As usual, everything comes down to $$$ in this world, doesn't it? Nothing more important. Quite sad.

The problem seems to be industries that are making megabucks wanting to continue business as usual;

Everyone who benefits from fossil fuels to eat, live, thrive would prefer to continue using fossil fuels.
Especially in places where more expensive, less reliable, "green energy" would mean starvation and death.

As usual, everything comes down to $$$ in this world, doesn't it?

And using reliable energy to keep your family alive.

We can do better by finding innovative, less polluting ways to let all of us continue to thrive. Those attempts are being fought by those getting rich on fossil fuels. We've only got one planet. The scientists are saying if we continue burning fossil fuels at the rate we are now, none of us will be thriving for long. I guess it's whether one looks at well being in the short term or the long term.

We can do better by finding innovative, less polluting ways to let all of us continue to thrive.

If you want reliable energy with no CO2 emissions, you have to support nuclear energy.

Those attempts are being fought by those getting rich on fossil fuels.

Who are they fighting? Those getting rich on "green energy".

The scientists are saying if we continue burning fossil fuels at the rate we are now, none of us will be thriving for long.

You need to convince people that would freeze in the winter that they need to stop burning fossil fuels, or they'll stop thriving.

I guess it's whether one looks at well being in the short term or the long term.

Exactly. You people who live in Chicago need to freeze in the short term and look at the long term.

 

[OldLady]

If you want reliable energy with no CO2 emissions, you have to support nuclear energy.
I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that.

You need to convince people that would freeze in the winter that they need to stop burning fossil fuels, or they'll stop thriving.
What about the sewer treatment plants and landfills that are converting the CO2 emissions into natural gas? What about heating with electricity provided by wind power? Given a chance, there will be many alternatives. You seem to know much more about the topic than I do, so you must realize that's true.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you want reliable energy with no CO2 emissions, you have to support nuclear energy.
I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that.

You need to convince people that would freeze in the winter that they need to stop burning fossil fuels, or they'll stop thriving.
What about the sewer treatment plants and landfills that are converting the CO2 emissions into natural gas? What about heating with electricity provided by wind power? Given a chance, there will be many alternatives. You seem to know much more about the topic than I do, so you must realize that's true.

I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that.

Congrats. You're smarter than 95% of the greens out there.

What about the sewer treatment plants and landfills that are converting the CO2 emissions into natural gas?

That would be capturing methane, not converting CO2. Sounds good. Will that double fuel costs? Triple? More?

What about heating with electricity provided by wind power?

If I had to heat my home in Chicago with wind power, I'd be toasty in the summer and freezing in the winter.

Given a chance, there will be many alternatives.

Yes, lots of tiny, expensive "green" alternatives to supplement cheap, reliable fossil fuels.

 

[OldLady]

If you want reliable energy with no CO2 emissions, you have to support nuclear energy.
I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that.

You need to convince people that would freeze in the winter that they need to stop burning fossil fuels, or they'll stop thriving.
What about the sewer treatment plants and landfills that are converting the CO2 emissions into natural gas? What about heating with electricity provided by wind power? Given a chance, there will be many alternatives. You seem to know much more about the topic than I do, so you must realize that's true.

I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that.

Congrats. You're smarter than 95% of the greens out there.

What about the sewer treatment plants and landfills that are converting the CO2 emissions into natural gas?

That would be capturing methane, not converting CO2. Sounds good. Will that double fuel costs? Triple? More?

What about heating with electricity provided by wind power?

If I had to heat my home in Chicago with wind power, I'd be toasty in the summer and freezing in the winter.

Given a chance, there will be many alternatives.

Yes, lots of tiny, expensive "green" alternatives to supplement cheap, reliable fossil fuels.

They won't stay expensive and tiny given time, and you realize that. There is nothing wrong with thinking beyond your 'reliable' fossil fuels that will (1) eventually be exhausted and (2) are poisoning our planet. You know that, too. Thanks for the correction on the methane thing, btw.

 

[Boston1]

Nonsense

Why the same old song and dance about nuclear being the only option. Nuclear fuel has proven itself one of the least favorable fuels. Its extremely hazardous to the environment and its CO2 intensive.

Renewables are the way to go. The ONLY way to go. Solar, in all its forms. Wind, tidal, we're swimming in more than enough energy to run this place without oil or nuclear.

Why are these multinational so focused on pushing Nuclear or fossil fuels ? Its simple, they make money on those fuels. Renewables can be produced at the point of consumption. There's no shipping, no huge production facilities involved, nothing for the multinationals to add their cut too.

Its simple

The fossil fuel industry is all about greed, they have no use in the best solution; they only see and will support the solutions that continue to support the status quo. All this nonsense about nuclear fuel is nothing more than fear tactics. There's a few other realities about nuclear that are less well known, Like finding the high grade fuel needed or the decommissioning costs on the plants that we already have and are running decades beyond their design limit.

Nuclear is a huge mistake and anyone who's looked into it knows it.

Its nothing more than a scar tactic to encourage the ignorant to continue supporting the multinationals cash cow. Oil.

Oh and I lived in a solar home for years. I'm working on building another green tech home now. Its miles cheaper than one based on fossil fuels. The biggest obstacle is getting around the energy companies bought and paid for laws about having to buy taps when you don't need them. But once I beat that nonsense its cheaper to have a few solar cells and wind generators as well as a back up biodiesel gen set than to pay the electric hook up fee; let alone the monthly tab. Same for heat. I'm not hooking up to the gas lines, don't need it. Super insulated, small house, top of the line insulating glass uses about 1/10 the BTU to heat than a conventional home.

There's so many solutions to simply burning fossil fuels its ridiculous.

My furnace runs on wood pellets, they cost about $175 a ton this year. In my last place I burned less than two tons over the entire winter. My new place will be even more efficient.

Fossil fuels are for fossilize people, fossilized in the advertising campaigns that snowed them into handing the fossil fuel industry all their money in the first place. ;--)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you want reliable energy with no CO2 emissions, you have to support nuclear energy.
I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that.

You need to convince people that would freeze in the winter that they need to stop burning fossil fuels, or they'll stop thriving.
What about the sewer treatment plants and landfills that are converting the CO2 emissions into natural gas? What about heating with electricity provided by wind power? Given a chance, there will be many alternatives. You seem to know much more about the topic than I do, so you must realize that's true.

I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that.

Congrats. You're smarter than 95% of the greens out there.

What about the sewer treatment plants and landfills that are converting the CO2 emissions into natural gas?

That would be capturing methane, not converting CO2. Sounds good. Will that double fuel costs? Triple? More?

What about heating with electricity provided by wind power?

If I had to heat my home in Chicago with wind power, I'd be toasty in the summer and freezing in the winter.

Given a chance, there will be many alternatives.

Yes, lots of tiny, expensive "green" alternatives to supplement cheap, reliable fossil fuels.

They won't stay expensive and tiny given time, and you realize that. There is nothing wrong with thinking beyond your 'reliable' fossil fuels that will (1) eventually be exhausted and (2) are poisoning our planet. You know that, too. Thanks for the correction on the methane thing, btw.

They won't stay expensive and tiny given time, and you realize that.

Great, we should stop wasting money subsidizing them.

There is nothing wrong with thinking beyond your 'reliable' fossil fuels

I have no problem thinking beyond fossil fuels.
Thorium reactors should also be built, and if you're in love with solar, I've supported solar power satellites since at least 1980.

are poisoning our planet.

Carbon dioxide is not a poison.