brenthutch
-
Content
11,005 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
37 -
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by brenthutch
-
No, I'm pretty sure that I started this thread about how the GND was magical thinking. Any thread drift was in reply to other respondents.
-
Let's just ignore Alex Jones. He is an idiot that doesn't deserve ANY attention.
-
The OP was about the Green New Deal which makes AOC more relevant than the NAS.
-
Sea level is rising, at the same rate it has since records began. Temperatures have risen, slightly, melting glaciers and revealing artifacts from previous eras that were warmer than today, when CO2 levels were low. My anecdote about polar bears is spot on. It reveals the hyperbolic nonsense of the warmist community. Al Gore told us polar bears were on their way to extinction, AOC says that we LITERALLY have only twelve years left to save the planet.....they're both wrong.
-
Yes we can agree with that. Some folks think we are going to run out of fossil fuels like someone flipping a switch, we won't. As fossil fuels (or any commodity for that matter) become more scarce their price will rise. As that happens other energy sources begin to look more attractive, effecting a smooth transition driven by economics not some top-down cram down.
-
From your article: Examples of Potential Economic Effects of Climate Change by 2100 I don't mean to suggest that weather related natural disasters don't happen, they do, just as they did a hundred years ago. There has been NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in floods, droughts, hurricanes, wildfires and the rate of sea level rise. Polar bears? Still here. Maldives? Still here. Snow a thing of the past? Turn around and look up in the California mountains. "The whole aim of climate science is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
-
Again, you are talking of something that MIGHT (or might not) happen in the future. As Niels Bohr said "it's very hard to predict, especially the future". I am citing current statistics you are trying to read a crystal ball. I hope I don't have to remind you of the countless failed predictions of global warming alarmists. I thought, for sure, that this fever would have broken by now but I see I am wrong.
-
Your article says that something MIGHT happen sometime in the future, you claimed that it is happening now, big difference. I am citing peer reviewed scientific publications and a detailed statistical analysis, you are quoting a magazine I buy in the super market
-
Bill how can you say my SUV is not economically viable? My wife wanted it, we could afford it, with two kids and an 80lb yellow lab we kinda needed it. Best of all we did not need government subsidies (unlike Tesla owners). BTW I still want to know where your figure of "hundreds of billions" of damage from global warming comes from, especially since Dr Roger Pielke has conclusively shown that the four horsemen of the global warming apocalypse (floods, droughts, hurricanes and wildfires) have yet to darken our doorstep and that the increased costs of weather related disasters is a function of development, and inflation rather than an increase in frequently, duration or intensity of the phenomenon in question.
-
Bill you made the claim, "The cost of climate change is already hundreds of billions of dollars a year," where did you get that figure?
-
Gowlerk, the title on the OP was the title of the article I linked to, nothing more.
-
Yoink, I'm sorry but that is the way MOST progress works. "Let me explain, no there is to much, let me sum up" http://robertbryce.com/wood-to-coal-to-oil-to-natural-gas-and-nuclear-the-slow-pace-of-energy-transitions/ "So, yes, the calls to move away from carbon-based fuels are loud and frequent. But facts are better than dreams. And a look back at history shows that coal, oil, and natural gas are going to be with us for a long time to come."
-
I don't want this conversation to degrade into name calling and the questioning of one's motives. I'm sure we all want a better life for us and our progeny. I just believe a full throated discussion on how achieve those ends, is worthwhile.
-
How am I moving the goalposts?
-
Bill, I don't reject SUVs, my wife drives a Mercedes GL450. As far as "the wall" I am for securing our boarders and following our laws. My position on border security is the same as my position on energy, I am for what works. Just think, if we had control of our southern border Trump would not be President. Put a price on that.
-
No actually I'm just the opposite, I will embrace wind, solar and unicorn farts as soon as they become economically viable. If the adaptation of renewables were to lower energy costs instead of causing them to skyrocket, I would be for renewables, unfortunately they do not. I look to Germany as a cautionary tale and their aggressive adaptation of wind and solar. Results? Skyrocketing energy costs and a GROWING carbon footprint.
-
Only because of free market forcing. Take a look at the progress of computing power when it was the exclusive domain of government vs what happened when capitalism got ahold of it. BTW I have learned my lesson and will not belittle you nor your arguments with petty name calling
-
To be fair the Penn State coal plant was state-of-the-art. It had to be it was in the middle of town?
-
Hell Bill, until Penn State switched over to natural gas, I lived in the shadow of a coal fired power plant. No lung cancer issues here in Happy Valley.
-
Yes it is exactly like that. The wealthy can afford to live near the sea and pay exorbitant electricity bills. It is the poor and middle class that feel the pain of California's virtue signaling. https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/412928-middle-class-is-disappearing-in-california-as-wealth-gap-grows
-
It's just one example, Germany would be another. Renewables have just overtaken coal in electrical production. Result? $.33 kWh.
-
The political feasibility was in regard to nuclear power. The economic feasibility is illustrated in my Louisiana/California compare and contrast.
-
No the continuing drop in price from a dramatic increase in efficiency was not possible due to physics. Read the article
-
Somewhere between your article and the reality experienced by the bill paying public, something profound happens. California which generates more than half of its electricity from renewables charges $.18kWh and Louisiana which gets less than 5% of its electricity from renewables pays only $.09kWh.
-
Bill, just because something is technically feasible doesn't make it economically or politically feasible.
