US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[Bycrick]

"I have seen it. It is riddled with errors and deceptions."

And we, of course, are just supposed to blindly accept your description. For someone who can always find dozens of links to cut-and-paste, why not take the time to qualify and/or justify your statement. I mean actually write something yourself that requires some thought, rather than clicking on somebody else’s work.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Do you bother to read what you post?

That is an assumption and should not be in a serious debate .

Yes I know they all are full of bs stuff ..

Gotta meet the ministry of truth mantra

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

You have yet to explain why 2 or 3 generations of humans should burn through all the oil reserves leaving none for anyone after that. None for rescue, none for emergency aid. There are no proven alternative technologies for these essential uses yet we have proven technologies for non-essential uses. Until there is more technology, we should conserve our limited resources. Using it to make sails and rope will make it last 100 times longer than powering engines with it. This fact has nothing to do with the climate.

Because we feel like doing it .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

al gore is a disingenuous hypocrite.

Regardless of the climate. Regardless of this gross misuse of the world's resources. I personally find it annoying when other people drive boats powered by engines: They are muppets to me. So, therefore, it is in my best interest to deny you this behavior because, it serves me no purpose. It is just full of "I can't" excuses for why being lazy impatient and selfish is "ok". It's no different to people driving cars, and now most people are overweight. What good is that? It's a rotten society. In places without cars, without power boats, the people were cool, they were fun, they were nice. Explain why that is. Explain why people with cars and powerboats (sailboat with engine is a powerboat) are impatient, ignorant, selfish and entitled. I already have, but there are plenty more reasons I have not listed you can help fill in.

Then go back there if you feel so strongly about being in a first world country.

[Bycrick]

SDP — If you choose to live in the 19th century, no cars, etc., why did you have a thread a few months ago looking for cheap dyneema rigging? What’s going to happen to your autopilot and computer when you finally convince people to give up all that nasty industrialization and get back to basics? When it gets cold in Canada they’ll just huddle in their igloos waiting for a walrus, just like they used to. The world might have problems, but I don’t think SFP has workable solutions.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

Not only is it possible, but it is for certain. If they could get oil and gas without fracking they would. It costs more that way. Furthermore, you should consider that people are actively sabatoging pipelines. This activity will increase more and more in the future regardless of your personal beliefs, it is a significant factor and will limit supply and increase cost increasingly in the future.

wind is far and away the cheapest source of energy. Solar is in second. These sources are reliable as I get 100% of electricy from solar, the boat is powered anywhere by wind.


such as cars? yes the numbers do not add up right at all on these. It is dishonest to claim they will solve what is claimed when the emissions reduction of full conversion is in the range of 1-3% of global emissions.

I could say that gasoline cars will be viable only when they can be recharged from solar panels, regenerate energy from braking, and not emit any particulates or exhaust or need oil changes. This is a made-up requirement and every individual can decide what is viable or not. More and more people are deciding EV are viable every year. I have decided neither gasoline power nor EV cars are viable.
Again, EV is not the solution, and investing in them as proposed by biden and others is dangerous. Look at the science, compare the numbers, look at the world's lithium reserves and so forth: the numbers don't add up. As for replacing battery in cordless drill, I do all the time. I repair things even if it cost more to repair and much more time than to replace to avoid producing garbage and gain experience.
It is unlikely. The thorium reactor is theory only as is fusion power. Until it is reality, we must be more conservative of our resources. Furthermore, any radioactive material itself is non-renewable and should be reserved for space exploration, not for spinning steam turbines.
Imagine if we use much less oil than we do. Now, it would give russia zero leverage on this. In contrast it would give us the moral higher ground to limit china's use. Currently americans emit twice what chinese do, and produce little for the rest of the world unlike china. Historic emissions of the USA are 2.5x that of china. It is shameful for so few people to consume so much.

Its true that wind and solar are the cheapest sources of energy. This is the real driver for their widespread and accelerating adoption.

so far thorium is not viable. go ahead and research away, but consider it will likely create new problems we do not envision and the time when it is viable ranges from next year to never.

actually, wind and solar can extend the time until oil reserves are depleted by thousands of years. This is the obvious thing to do.

Ok, but consider the coal used to make sails vs the coal used to power a steam engine. It is orders of magnitude different. The same is true of burning oil in an engine vs making sails out of it, the factor is at least 100:1

to answer to both of these: no, but many other such questions with an answer of "no" exist.

Consider that carbon taxes are really not fair or reasonable any more so than any other tax. It is just the best option to work within the current society framework. They could reduce other taxes so this is not going to further impoverish everyone, only those who decided to build their lives around carbon emission. People who don't cause emissions would benefit from the reduction of other taxes.

Most people in the world do not, it somehow happens the people causing most of the emissions do have excess income and can most afford to not cause emissions yet they tend to choose to do so anyway.

It is a selfish choice when plenty of other options exist. You can simply ride a bicycle to your job. People in finland do, even in -20C. There are ways to heat a house without oil. Most "jobs" in modern society are of questionable value, and quitting is unlikely to burden anyone. Lots of people recently quit their job and it didn't really matter which indicates how useful those jobs really were. When better choices exist and you choose the selfish way: it is selfish. Demonizing what most people in rich countries tend to do is not demonizing everyone.

maybe, but it should not be used as an excuse for inaction as it has been and continues to be.

For a smart seeming individual you are not to bright . How did the groceries you eat get to the store ? It's called DIESEL.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

$4 for fuel and you don't mind? Perhaps you are filthy rich and do not care about the rest of us. Handing over more of one's earnings to big business by inflation, and to governments by taxation is certainly counter productive to most people. Higher priced fuel is only a partial deterrent. People still live the same distances from their jobs for instance, so many will still need to commute by some form of transport that uses petroleum. And of course fuel price increases inflate the cost of everything else.

This argument overlooks the fact increased profits for the petrochemical industry results in more jobs and higher value of investment income including everyone’s 401k. And that increased value far exceeds the cost of a gallon of gasoline.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

"I have seen it. It is riddled with errors and deceptions."

And we, of course, are just supposed to blindly accept your description. For someone who can always find dozens of links to cut-and-paste, why not take the time to qualify and/or justify your statement. I mean actually write something yourself that requires some thought, rather than clicking on somebody else’s work.

Th music festival was from 2005, not very current.

The EV's shown are really outdated.

The Dagget solar farm looks this.



BTW - my "cut and paste" is called evidence unlike to the vacuous rants you post.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

This argument overlooks the fact increased profits for the petrochemical industry results in more jobs and higher value of investment income including everyone’s 401k. And that increased value far exceeds the cost of a gallon of gasoline.

Also overlooks the fact that some of us are on a fixed income due to disability.

Just means I choose cheaper food to afford diesel to run my boat and furnace .

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

The atmospheric energy balance has been known for a long time, measured and confirmed since the earliest satellites were launched (it was critical for heat seeking missiles). it is in hundreds of papers and text books. Your paper you cited says they have found a flaw in that work and have zero confirming data of their findings, other than we like .5C for a doubling of CO2 and H2O has no effect. Basic science will tell you that 1C rise will result in 7% more H2O in the atmosphere.. and that H2O is 60% of the effect of the overall greenhouse gas equation to CO2's 30%. Something doesn't add up.
The authors have zero published papers on this topic before this paper. You like the paper because it has answers you endorse. I don't like the paper because it is wrong on the most basic technical facts.

'The Earth appears to have cooling properties that exceeds the previous thought ones, and that computer models are inadequate to try to foretell a chaotic object like the climate, where actual observations is the only way to go’

Award-Winning Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: 'We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified...there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic...The warming we have had the last a 100 years is so small that if we didn't have had meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn't have noticed it at all.'

Dr. Lennart Bengtsson:

'CO2”s heating effect is logarithmic: the higher the concentration is, the smaller the effect of a further increase'

'The sea level has risen fairly evenly for a hundred years by 2-3 millimeters per year. The pitch is not accelerated'

‘Climate change has become extremely politicized. The issue is so complex that one can not ask the people to be convinced that the whole economic system must be changed just because you have done some computer simulations’

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I have seen it. It is riddled with errors and deceptions.

To some extent,yes. Even the General Motors executive Kristin Zimmerman who was showing off the new electric car did nit even now that most of the City of Lansing's electrical power was produced with 95% coal, as revealed by Peter Lark of Lansing Board of Water & Light. Yet she thought that the EV was such a fantastic development. A zero emission car that is charged with coal generated electricity. Quite a deception was exposed in that segment. The wood fired generation plant that causes deforestation was another revelation. The film crew was not even allowed near the plant. Why was the plant staff trying to hide the plant from scrutiny? Such revelations as that if every tree in the United States were cut for wood fired generation, it would power the country for a year are interesting.


Solar panels are made from silicon which is produced using coal. Coal fired plants are being replaced with natural gas plants that still emit carbon dioxide. Electrical Engineer Adriann McCoy admitted to the fact that conventional generation must be kept on standby for intermittent renewables. This was confirmed by Philip Moeller of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Then there are photovoltaic cells that are designed to last to years as revealed by an industry expert.


Yup, the false climate change narrative and the alternate energy industry are rife with deception and withheld knowledge. The truth seems to be that there is not yet a viable replacement for petroleum and coal. And there is really no urgent need to do so.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

"I have seen it. It is riddled with errors and deceptions."

And we, of course, are just supposed to blindly accept your description. For someone who can always find dozens of links to cut-and-paste, why not take the time to qualify and/or justify your statement. I mean actually write something yourself that requires some thought, rather than clicking on somebody else’s work.

This is typical of the climate alarmists. Many present themselves as smart asses who have volumes of knowledge at their finger tips. But they lack the basic sense to see through the deception that they have fallen for. He made a scathing statement, but offered no detail to support it. Just what are the deceptions, and what is the proof of the statement?



“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” - Mark Twain

[Allied39]

[QUOTE=Dieseldude;

Solar panels are made from silicon which is produced using coal. Coal fired plants are being replaced with natural gas plants that still emit carbon dioxide. Electrical Engineer Adriann McCoy admitted to the fact that conventional generation must be kept on standby for intermittent renewables. This was confirmed by Philip Moeller of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Then there are photovoltaic cells that are designed to last to years as revealed by an industry expert.

Yup, the false climate change narrative and the alternate energy industry are rife with deception and withheld knowledge. The truth seems to be that there is not yet a viable replacement for petroleum and coal. And there is really no urgent need to do so.[/QUOTE]


The whole solar panel deal I find entertaining. The above mentioned silicone. And what about the aluminum to make the frames? Mined in Bolivia, bauxite shipped? trucked? to smelters? Clean fellows those smelters.

And I was told just last week that 275watt solar panels can be bought in Georgia for $60. HUH? Yeah, apparently they replace them every two years?!?

Wha? every two years...that sounds stupid......or does it? Is it in the contract that some company is making millions a year replacing panels that do not need replacing? Gee....do ya think? Real green that is.

Yeah, so I have never thought that solar panels themselves have no carbon footprint, unless simply plucked from between the rear cheeks of some hippy.....and pretty sure thats not the case.

But, of course, i have some solar panels, cause it suits me. I want them on my boat....cause I do.
I have two v8's, one from 68....lol, thatun does not burn clean! The other from 96. And also a 4 cylinder in my 37 Austin 7 from the 60's, tad smokey thatun.
I mention this to the fellow gloating about fuel prices. $4 a gallon? No problem....gets to $10 and I'll be driving the same cars....just pass that cost along.....maybe to you.

And lastly, just to point out how idiotic the average person is, whilst driving my V8 around today I marveled at the big green garbage truck. painting a garbage truck does not make it green......well it does.....but not green in the way in works in the average idiots head. They paint them green to make idiots feel better about the garbage truck.

Its all just too ludicrous. Seriously, its an absolute JOKE!!

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Allied39

The whole solar panel deal I find entertaining. The above mentioned silicone. And what about the aluminum to make the frames? Mined in Bolivia, bauxite shipped? trucked? to smelters? Clean fellows those smelters.

And I was told just last week that 275watt solar panels can be bought in Georgia for $60. HUH? Yeah, apparently they replace them every two years?!?

Wha? every two years...that sounds stupid......or does it? Is it in the contract that some company is making millions a year replacing panels that do not need replacing? Gee....do ya think? Real green that is.

Yeah, so I have never thought that solar panels themselves have no carbon footprint, unless simply plucked from between the rear cheeks of some hippy.....and pretty sure thats not the case.

But, of course, i have some solar panels, cause it suits me. I want them on my boat....cause I do.
I have two v8's, one from 68....lol, thatun does not burn clean! The other from 96. And also a 4 cylinder in my 37 Austin 7 from the 60's, tad smokey thatun.
I mention this to the fellow gloating about fuel prices. $4 a gallon? No problem....gets to $10 and I'll be driving the same cars....just pass that cost along.....maybe to you.

And lastly, just to point out how idiotic the average person is, whilst driving my V8 around today I marveled at the big green garbage truck. painting a garbage truck does not make it green......well it does.....but not green in the way in works in the average idiots head. They paint them green to make idiots feel better about the garbage truck.

Its all just too ludicrous. Seriously, its an absolute JOKE!!

Actually painting them green does serve a real serious purpose just like painting a fire truck red. Makes them easily identifiable by color association .

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Th music festival was from 2005, not very current.

The EV's shown are really outdated.

The Dagget solar farm looks this.



BTW - my "cut and paste" is called evidence unlike to the vacuous rants you post.

Another clever photo. Why not include photos of the nuclear, coal, or gas fired plants that back up this expensive white elephant at night and on cloudy days? Why not include the statics on productivity such as cost of the entire plant, cost per kilowatt, disposal costs of deteriorated solar panels, etc.? My hunch is that its cost is not even close to economical. How much coal was used to produce silicon for solar panels ? How will old solar panels be disposed of ? How many square miles of land was taken out of its natural state?