Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[R-T-B]

Look plain and simple it's a scam from the elitists to make us poorer and live in coffins while they laugh their way to the bank on their 10th private jet.

Look at what these celebs do. Jet around and have lavish events that pollute a lot, accept some green award, and go on another private jet to another megamansion.

Nice nonargument you have there. Lots of class warefare. Spicy.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Fair enough. However, wasn't he evaluating papers from actual research scientists? And if all he did was look at their "opening statements" (the "Abstract"), to see if that stated an agreement, disagreement, or agnostic response to AGW, how is that not relevant?

What did I just say about gouging my eyes out?

First, he conducted his "research" by starting from a foundation of bias using search terms: "global climate change" or "global warming." That automatically exempts all papers, for example, on "global cooling."

Second, IPCC and governments around the world would only fund papers for decades that used those very same keywords.

Bias on top of confirmation bias.


Also, opinion has naught to do with science. "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." --Albert Einstein

There's too much politics and bureaucracy in climate science. The science is getting buried under the activists.

 

[Ahhzz]

What did I just say about gouging my eyes out?

First, he conducted his "research" by starting from a foundation of bias using search terms: "global climate change" or "global warming." That automatically exempts all papers, for example, on "global cooling."

Second, IPCC and governments around the world would only fund papers for decades that used those very same keywords.

Bias on top of confirmation bias.


Also, opinion has naught to do with science. "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." --Albert Einstein

There's too much politics and bureaucracy in climate science. The science is getting buried under the activists.

I've got a question for you. Putting aside the question of "Global Warming, True or HG Wells?", the goal for those supporting the cause is to cut back on deforestation, move to better fuel economy vehicles with less emissions, and increase power production from Wind and Solar sources, if I understand correctly. How are these bad ideas? Other than a disagreement with "Why", is there an issue with moving forward with these initiatives?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I've got a question for you. Putting aside the question of "Global Warming, True or HG Wells?", the goal for those supporting the cause is to cut back on deforestation, move to better fuel economy vehicles with less emissions, and increase power production from Wind and Solar sources, if I understand correctly. How are these bad ideas? Other than a disagreement with "Why", is there an issue with moving forward with these initiatives?

Deforestation: they're encouraging it in third world countries like Haiti. If they need heat but are deprived of means of getting it like coal power, what do they do? Chop down forests. The best way to save the forests is to use nuclear power. Look at Pripyat today!

Spoiler: pic

Better Fuel Economy: This happened anyway with the rise in oil price. Simple economics shapes demand.

Less Emissions: Good in principle but it's a burden on the poor. The thousands of dollars of extra equipment low emission vehicle costs may make or break the decision to buy a new, cleaner vehicle versus and old, heavily polluting vehicle. In this regard, a middle of the road vehicle (more efficient but not as clean) would have been the best outcome for all parties involved.

Wind and Solar: Neither of these technologies work without either batteries or some other alternative power source (in USA, that's natural gas turbines). Here's what additions/retirements look like over the last decade: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30112
Here's what the total power composition looks like to give the above data context: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/
"Wind" and "Solar" are buzz words. Where does the power mostly come from? Natural gas, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric, in that order.

How are they bad? They're 20th century (or older in the case of wind, solar, and deforestation) solutions for 21st century problems. We should be focused on fusion and hydrogen fuel cells. Why? Deforestation becomes nonsensical for energy. Fuel economy becomes irrelevant unless you live in a desert (hydrogen fuel cells need water). Emissions are literally water vapor. Wind and solar become laughable investments (very low return per dollar). We can pull the whole damn planet out of poverty and protect the environment at the same time. Optimal outcome for everyone.

 

[remixedcat]

Nice nonargument you have there. Lots of class warefare. Spicy.

It is true though. Al Gore even has some of the least efficient mansions. He also has 7 of them. As well as multiple private jets. Yet him and his cronies tell us common folk that we overuse and abuse the planet?

Sounds fishy doesn't it? If they practiced what they preached they would live in the coffins they want us to live in and take public transport, fly coach, etc.

 

[bug]

I've got a question for you. Putting aside the question of "Global Warming, True or HG Wells?", the goal for those supporting the cause is to cut back on deforestation, move to better fuel economy vehicles with less emissions, and increase power production from Wind and Solar sources, if I understand correctly. How are these bad ideas? Other than a disagreement with "Why", is there an issue with moving forward with these initiatives?

These can easily transform into bad ideas when they take funding away from education, health and other domains.
In fact, the #1 argument against AGW proponents is fear-mongering used to gain funding.

 

[StrayKAT]

It is true though. Al Gore even has some of the least efficient mansions. He also has 7 of them. As well as multiple private jets. Yet him and his cronies tell us common folk that we overuse and abuse the planet?

Sounds fishy doesn't it? If they practiced what they preached they would live in the coffins they want us to live in and take public transport, fly coach, etc.

People think aristocrats died off after WW1, but all we got was a bunch of pretenders to replace them... without the cool pomp to go with it. And they all come from worst skillsets/classes: lawyers and entertainers. I'd almost take the "Divine Right of Kings" over this. It's no less bullshit than this is.

edit: Sadly, I've heard people literally making excuses for Gore's sense of entitlement. That he "needs" these things and he's more important or something. People are literally under the spell, just like they once were with nobility.

 

[R-T-B]

Al Gore

isn't represenitive of liberals as a whole. Heck he isn't really even green as you note...

Sadly, I've heard people literally making excuses for Gore's sense of entitlement. That he "needs" these things and he's more important or something. People are literally under the spell, just like they once were with nobility.

He doesn't. He may have a right to them but he's still a major hypocrite who did more harm to the green energy movement than any conservative advocates wet dream. He made it partisan too, which I am still angry about.

 

[StrayKAT]

isn't represenitive of liberals as a whole. Heck he isn't really even green as you note...



He doesn't. He may have a right to them but he's still a major hypocrite who did more harm to the green energy movement than any conservative advocates wet dream. He made it partisan too, which I am still angry about.

Thanks for admitting it.. but I still see many prop him up.

On a sidenote, I already said this in this thread, but we should all work together to stop pollution. That's a clear and present danger.. and very tangible. I find that climate change fears distract from this, because it's shooting for the stars, and just frustratingly ambiguous...and then makes people dismissive on this other vital problem. A problem that's easier to educate and convince people about... if you just stop pissing them off with all of the other fearmongering.

 

[Papahyooie]

Sorry, it was my understanding that the "Cook et al" referenced was simply a look at a multitude of papers which analyzed earlier peer-reviewed articles on climate change in general, not a study that set out to answer the question "Who agrees with 'The global temperature is rising, and humans are the cause.' " If I've misunderstood the purpose of the Cook research, I apologize. I did find an article on Forbes which seems to uphold my understanding, but I've been mistaken multiple times today alone

To support my statement, I refer to the actual Cook et al paper itself, where the opening abstract states:

Abstract
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate
change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed
AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing
a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

It doesn't say "they looked to see who agreed with AGW", but "Among ~12,000 papers who mentioned Global Warming, did any of those researchers take a stance on AGW, and if so, what?" The researchers in those papers weren't all answering a question of "The global temperature is rising, and humans are the cause", but merely in some shape, examining Global Warming at all.

I think the point stands. Of those 12k papers mentioning Global Warming, 67% had "No Comment" as to "The global temperature is rising, and humans are the cause", and of the rest (33%-ish) which did comment about AGW, 97% of them had statements that could be read in support of that statement.

Fair. Some papers may have not looked at the "anthropomorphic" side of things at all, which would disqualify them from "agreeing" with the study's requirements. However, many of the papers (and I've read at least the abstract of many of them, though obviously not all 12 thousand) DO look at exactly that, decide there is no stance to be made, and are subsequently ignored in Cook's conclusion. "No comment" is not the only thing that was left to the 67%. Regardless, I don't think anyone with any integrity would consider 33% to be an acceptable level of confidence.

As I said above... don't take my word for it. Don't take anybody's word for it. That's the point.

 

[John Naylor]

Delusional, what's next the Flat Earth poll ? The most hysterical thing about this claim is that for the most part these adjustments actually work against the case that global warming is hoax . Adjustments are a normal and necessary part of the scientific process as otherwise data is meaningless. Let's look at a more familiar example..... has the relative price of the top GFX card as part of your typical gone up (recent tariff impacted, old generatio inventories aside) since 2000 ? At 1st glance the Gefore 2 Ultra in 2000 was $500 and the 1080 Ti was $700 would have most folks claiming yes. I won't say they are wring, they just need to educate themselves because they are misinformed. The relative cost of any item historically must be adjusted for inflation. When we do, we see that if you had $400 in 2000, it would be worth 4700 today. So yes, the cost of the two cards when adjusted for inflation is the same $700. As income changes and the cost of everything else went up in 17 years, any data without this adjustment can only be described with one word "meaningless".

https://images.hardocp.com/images/news/1489189662xrJkzvohX8_1_1.png

The properties of materials change dependent upon pressure and temperature. A cu.ft. of air weighs less on the top of a mountain than it does at sea level. Ever notice the finger joints in the roadway when you drive over a bridge . Thats to allow for the thermal expansion of the bridge due to changing temperatures. The bridge itself is 7 feet longer ans 12 feet lower i the summer than it is in the winter ... so which number do you use as a matter of record ?

The same thing is being done here. It is well known that the temperature of seawater changes with depth from surface as warmer rises and is additionally heated bu the suns rays and also affected by wind. So if you record surface water temperatures of 75F on a calm sunny day at noon and 73F the following cloudy day of 73C at 12 feet below the surface is any of the data useable for the purposes of comparison ? Of course not. Amont the various differences in sampling procedure we can include:

a) Where was bucket stored in hours before sampling (in shade or out in sun)
b) Size of bucket
c) Material of bucket
d) How many feet below surface was sample taken
e) Was thermometer used tested against a standard

So in order to make the measurements useful, sample variations are laboratory tested. You have been usin g a certain thermometer for 2 weeks and then test it against a calibrated standard and it shows that the thermometer you were using was reading 2C high... not to make this adjustment would bad science. The same with all the other variables, you test and see whether they are significant or not and for the ones which prove significant, you apply the appropriate adjustment.

Later they changed from the bucket method to the cooling water intake sampling method. It was immediately recognized that taking this measurement at 12 feet of depth would result in lower tempertures so they took both for a period and identified that samples averaged, say for the prposes of discussion, 1.3 - 1.4C colder. Since we are talking about a phenomonon whicg has detected fractions of a degree per decade, how can you not make the appropriate scientific deduction ? It was later realized that engine room amd pipe temperature were impacting measurements so this data was again adjusted. Not to do so renders the data useless.

For land based air temps, you have a measuring site that was in the shade of a large building. That building is demolished, the site is in open sunlight and average temps at the device show a marked increase. Is the air any hotter in the shade than in the sun ? yes and no. The immediate answer is that the temps of the air are exactky the same. In the the sun, it just feels hotter bacuse of the solar radiation. But the measuring instruments and the surfaces around them are absorbing solar radiation which will raise the readings. So what they do is compare the readongs from site no 1124 and 1137 before and after the change. If it is determined that since the buiding was knocked down the average difference between th sampling points went from 0.3C to 0.5C, they would appropriately adjust by 0.2C. It's called the 'scientific process' and has no relation to the "political agenda" process. If these adjustments were not made, the date is useless.

What you are arguing is akin to Wizzard doing a cooler review and reporting CPU temps under testing and NOT making adjustments for changes in ambient temperature between tests.

Method A - Cooler 1 hits 77C at 26C ambient / Cooler 2 hits 77C at 23C ambient, both coolers are the same and this test is reliable cause no one "fiddled" with the numbers.

Method B - Cooler 1 hits 77C at 26C ambient / Cooler 2 hits 77C at 23C ambient, Cooler 2 is the better cooler cause after we "fiddled with" (aka made the appropriate scientific adjustments to) the numbers, 54C delta T is 3C better than 51C delta T.

met

 

[Papahyooie]

I've got a question for you. Putting aside the question of "Global Warming, True or HG Wells?", the goal for those supporting the cause is to cut back on deforestation, move to better fuel economy vehicles with less emissions, and increase power production from Wind and Solar sources, if I understand correctly. How are these bad ideas? Other than a disagreement with "Why", is there an issue with moving forward with these initiatives?

I am absolutely, 100% for clean energy. I've personally spent a MUCH higher time than your average person, on shorelines picking up waste. I'm absolutely for less emissions, wind, solar, nuclear... generally being cleaner and greener.

I am NOT a subscriber to the anthropomorphic global warming theory.

I am also NOT in support of taking public money from ordinary citizens and using it to subsidize and absorb the risk of billionaires who wish to make a gamble on a potentially unprofitable business like wind, solar, and nuclear. I'll never see a dime of the profits, but am expected to shoulder the risk? Nah.

What you've created here is a false dichotomy. Being for or against one thing does not mean you are for or against another thing.

 

[R-T-B]

Thanks for admitting it.. but I still see many prop him up.

On a sidenote, I already said this in this thread, but we should all work together to stop pollution. That's a clear and present danger.. and very tangible. I find that climate change fears distract from this, because it's shooting for the stars, and just frustratingly ambiguous...and then makes people dismissive on this other vital problem. A problem that's easier to educate and convince people about... if you just stop pissing them off with all of the other fearmongering.

I can agree with the commom ground there.

 

[remixedcat]

I am absolutely, 100% for clean energy. I've personally spent a MUCH higher time than your average person, on shorelines picking up waste. I'm absolutely for less emissions, wind, solar, nuclear... generally being cleaner and greener.

I am NOT a subscriber to the anthropomorphic global warming theory.

I am also NOT in support of taking public money from ordinary citizens and using it to subsidize and absorb the risk of billionaires who wish to make a gamble on a potentially unprofitable business like wind, solar, and nuclear. I'll never see a dime of the profits, but am expected to shoulder the risk? Nah.

What you've created here is a false dichotomy. Being for or against one thing does not mean you are for or against another thing.

Very much this!!!

 

[Ahhzz]

I am absolutely, 100% for clean energy. I've personally spent a MUCH higher time than your average person, on shorelines picking up waste. I'm absolutely for less emissions, wind, solar, nuclear... generally being cleaner and greener.

I am NOT a subscriber to the anthropomorphic global warming theory.

I am also NOT in support of taking public money from ordinary citizens and using it to subsidize and absorb the risk of billionaires who wish to make a gamble on a potentially unprofitable business like wind, solar, and nuclear. I'll never see a dime of the profits, but am expected to shoulder the risk? Nah.

What you've created here is a false dichotomy. Being for or against one thing does not mean you are for or against another thing.

I'm afraid you've made an assumption yourself I never indicated that being for those things I mentioned put you at odds with either stance, I just wanted to know how those things could be a bad thing, no matter how we come at them

Deforestation: they're encouraging it in third world countries like Haiti. If they need heat but are deprived of means of getting it like coal power, what do they do? Chop down forests. The best way to save the forests is to use nuclear power. Look at Pripyat today!

Spoiler: pic

Better Fuel Economy: This happened anyway with the rise in oil price. Simple economics shapes demand.

Less Emissions: Good in principle but it's a burden on the poor. The thousands of dollars of extra equipment low emission vehicle costs may make or break the decision to buy a new, cleaner vehicle versus and old, heavily polluting vehicle. In this regard, a middle of the road vehicle (more efficient but not as clean) would have been the best outcome for all parties involved.

Wind and Solar: Neither of these technologies work without either batteries or some other alternative power source (in USA, that's natural gas turbines). Here's what additions/retirements look like over the last decade: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30112
Here's what the total power composition looks like to give the above data context: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/
"Wind" and "Solar" are buzz words. Where does the power mostly come from? Natural gas, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric, in that order.

How are they bad? They're 20th century (or older in the case of wind, solar, and deforestation) solutions for 21st century problems. We should be focused on fusion and hydrogen fuel cells. Why? Deforestation becomes nonsensical for energy. Fuel economy becomes irrelevant unless you live in a desert (hydrogen fuel cells need water). Emissions are literally water vapor. Wind and solar become laughable investments (very low return per dollar). We can pull the whole damn planet out of poverty and protect the environment at the same time. Optimal outcome for everyone.

Unfortunately, when we have a movement back towards empowering the coal industry, instead of striding forwards to anything better, expecting the PTB to start pushing towards something as forward thinking as fuel cells is ludicrous, in my opinion. I just wondered why any movement towards cleaning up the environment, even in small steps, should be met with resistance. So it's just pennies on the dollar. That's the problem. It's not about making our world a better place, it's about "how much profit".

I think we're not going to get a government to decide to redirect time, energy, and monies towards something like fuel cells until all their buddies have managed to milk everything they can from the existing milk cows, as well as getting set up to make the most possible money from any future venture as soon as it moves. It doesn't matter how bad off we'll be by then,it will only matter if Uncle George has managed to make as many deals as possible before someone announces it.

The Mrs. worked on an R&D team that was developing high efficiency rechargeables. designed for use in vehicles, and her company was taken over (majority stocks purchased) by an Exxon Mobil group. I assume upper management knew the whole story, but the team was just told how much new money was going to be coming in for work. If I remember right. 2 months after the board shift, the team was told that further work on the battery project was stopped, and they were all reassigned to other areas. The patents filed by their team and the products from them were simply shelved. Big oil doesn't like competition.

I guess from my standpoint, all I see is big companies being dragged kicking and screaming away from anything to make more money, even if it means the world becomes a better place.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Unfortunately, when we have a movement back towards empowering the coal industry, instead of striding forwards to anything better, expecting the PTB to start pushing towards something as forward thinking as fuel cells is ludicrous, in my opinion.

Didn't look at that first link, did you? USA retired GWs worth of coal capacity over the last several years (replaced mostly by natural gas). That chart only goes up to 2016. This link says 9 GW was retired in 2017 and 14 GW is projected to be retired in 2018. Coal ($79.5/MWh) is dying because natural gas ($48.1/MWh) is so cheap.

I just wondered why any movement towards cleaning up the environment, even in small steps, should be met with resistance. So it's just pennies on the dollar. That's the problem. It's not about making our world a better place, it's about "how much profit".

Because it's depriving fusion energy the research money it needs (billions).

I think we're not going to get a government to decide to redirect time, energy, and monies towards something like fuel cells until all their buddies have managed to milk everything they can from the existing milk cows, as well as getting set up to make the most possible money from any future venture as soon as it moves. It doesn't matter how bad off we'll be by then,it will only matter if Uncle George has managed to make as many deals as possible before someone announces it.

Exactly but guess who "Uncle George" is. Wind and solar (see EIA.gov link above for government subsidies). It makes more sense to me to redirect those funds into fusion. As you can see from the chart, onshore wind is cost competitive without subsidies (unless they're not telling us something).

The Mrs. worked on an R&D team that was developing high efficiency rechargeables. designed for use in vehicles, and her company was taken over (majority stocks purchased) by an Exxon Mobil group. I assume upper management knew the whole story, but the team was just told how much new money was going to be coming in for work. If I remember right. 2 months after the board shift, the team was told that further work on the battery project was stopped, and they were all reassigned to other areas. The patents filed by their team and the products from them were simply shelved. Big oil doesn't like competition.

Another reason why fusion research is permanently shelved.

 

[hat]

All we're doing is passing the dirt around, here. I find it laughable that people love to point the finger at China, for instance, for polluting so much... but who does the world rely on to manufacture things? Largely China. Why? Because greedy corporations shoved everything over there because it's cheaper... and the lack of give a fuck about "green" things over there plays a big part in that. Anyone got any ideas how much it would cost to upgrade an old steel mill with the stuff it takes to meet environmental regulations here in the US? May as well move that over to China where you can just dump shit in the river, fill the air with garbage and pay your workers next to nothing.

It's the same reason we don't really have anything better than dirty fossil fuels like coal and oil right now. There's too much money tied up in those businesses. Why should I have a super efficient car that runs forever while polluting very little (or even cleaning) the air, when big oil can sell me a shitty one whose operation relies on their product? Why should I have access to enough cheap, clean power to do bitcoin mining with 1000 cards only to hear "more power to you" from my peers when the coal industry can sell me shitty power forever at a high price that ruins the Earth? Coal power plants are terribly inefficient! I've been all though them, literally cleaning up the crap that burning coal leaves behind. Their whole purpose is literally to boil a large amount of water to produce steam to turn a rather large generator. Nuclear plants too... it's just a big water boiler. Surely there's got to be a better way?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

All we're doing is passing the dirt around, here. I find it laughable that people love to point the finger at China, for instance, for polluting so much... but who does the world rely on to manufacture things? Largely China. Why? Because greedy corporations shoved everything over there because it's cheaper... and the lack of give a fuck about "green" things over there plays a big part in that. Anyone got any ideas how much it would cost to upgrade an old steel mill with the stuff it takes to meet environmental regulations here in the US? May as well move that over to China where you can just dump shit in the river, fill the air with garbage and pay your workers next to nothing.

Agreed.

It's the same reason we don't really have anything better than dirty fossil fuels like coal and oil right now. There's too much money tied up in those businesses. Why should I have a super efficient car that runs forever while polluting very little (or even cleaning) the air, when big oil can sell me a shitty one whose operation relies on their product? Why should I have access to enough cheap, clean power to do bitcoin mining with 1000 cards only to hear "more power to you" from my peers when the coal industry can sell me shitty power forever at a high price that ruins the Earth? Coal power plants are terribly inefficient! I've been all though them, literally cleaning up the crap that burning coal leaves behind. Their whole purpose is literally to boil a large amount of water to produce steam to turn a rather large generator. Nuclear plants too... it's just a big water boiler. Surely there's got to be a better way?

Coal is quite efficient because of the steam turbines. In terms of heat -> electricity, modern steam systems are over 60% efficient. No better way to convert heat into electricity has been found. Coal, fission, fusion are all simply heat sources.

 

[R-T-B]

Coal is quite efficient

From a heat to energy perspective maybe. There's a lot more at play though than just that.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Well yeah, coal has a lot more in it than just hydrocarbons. There's also a significant energy cost in transport because coal isn't that energy dense (especially compared to uranium).

 

[Assimilator]

Watched it and agreed with it. I really don't have anything to argue against.

You agree with what is essentially a hit piece containing intentionally misleading and false claims, to such an extent that the UK communications regulator ruled against it. Hmmm.

Cook is a political activist, not a climate scientist.

He's a cognitive scientist with a dual PhD and BSc and has numerous publications under his belt, which means he understands how science and peer review works, and his peers have agreed that he isn't talking total nonsense.

But according to your logic, only climate scientists are allowed to criticise or talk about the climate. Guess all of us in this thread should stop then.

"Wind" and "Solar" are buzz words.

HAHAHA you crack me up.

We should be focused on fusion and hydrogen fuel cells.

Yeah, because the scientific community hasn't spent literally billions of dollars over half a century trying to make fusion work... we've been two decades away from viable fusion power plants for all that time. No indication that will improve anytime soon.

Hydrogen falls apart at the first hurdle because guess what, you need energy to electrolyse water. Where do you get that energy? Oh. Let's also completely ignore the poor energy density of hydrogen and the issues around storing and transporting it. Your "oh noes more expensive emissions control devices make cars unaffordable" argument goes out the window if everyone ends up using hydrogen vehicles where the damn fuel cell has to be replaced every year.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You agree with what is essentially a hit piece containing intentionally misleading and false claims, to such an extent that the UK communications regulator ruled against it. Hmmm.

Talk is cheap. Prove it.

One example stands out like a sore thumb from the video: IPCC claimed malaria would spread because of warmer climate. An expert on mosquitos said that's bull. He is correct, of course. IPCC didn't remove their false statements. The scientist demanded to have his name removed because they didn't even use his research (or have any clue what they were talking about). IPCC refused. He threatened to sue. IPCC relented and removed his name. IPCC still published the demonstrably false statements in regards to mosquito populations.

Have a picture from Alaska:

Why does this stand out? I just saw a 60 Minutes piece on National Geographic nature photographer, Joel Sartore, whom sacrificed his feet to the Alaskan mosquitos because he was desperate for a photo. Story and photo here.

Yeah, because the scientific community hasn't spent literally billions of dollars over half a century trying to make fusion work... we've been two decades away from viable fusion power plants for all that time. No indication that will improve anytime soon.

Lockheed is still pursuing their high-beta fusion reactor:
https://www.defensenews.com/industr...-still-supporting-portable-nuclear-generator/

They were granted a patent (the danger of private versus public research) this year:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180047462A1/en

Hydrogen falls apart at the first hurdle because guess what, you need energy to electrolyse water.

Let me introduce you to a little discovery called spontaneous hydrolysis. Just add water and you get hydrogen and oxygen.

ZH2 is a 75 MW hydrogen fuel cell power plant on wheels:

GM recently put the army veteran in charge of developing and testing ZH2 in charge of GM Defense. They're co-developing a hydrogen powered APU to be used in aircraft.

Port of LA already has a fleet of hydrogen powered big rigs shuttling containers around (and they're expanding it).

 

[Assimilator]

Talk is cheap. Prove it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Ofcom_investigation_of_complaints

One example stands out like a sore thumb from the video: IPCC claimed malaria would spread because of warmer climate. An expert on mosquitos said that's bull. He is correct, of course. IPCC didn't remove their false statements. The scientist demanded to have his name removed because they didn't even use his research (or have any clue what they were talking about). IPCC refused. He threatened to sue. IPCC relented and removed his name. IPCC still published the demonstrably false statements in regards to mosquito populations.

Remember when you reminded us that Cook is not a climate scientist? Neither is Reiter.

I'm not sure how linking to a page about Alaska's mosquitoes counts as proof of anything.

Let me introduce you to a little discovery called spontaneous hydrolysis. Just add water and you get hydrogen and oxygen.

That would be a game-changer if it works; the fact that I haven't heard anything more about it since the announcement more than a year ago makes me skeptical. (Also for some reason I can't get to army.mil, maybe it's detecting that I'm from a s**thole country and blocking me? For anyone with the same problem: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...m-offers-fuel-cells-on-demand-just-add-water/)

 

[Vya Domus]

Yet him and his cronies tell us common folk that we overuse and abuse the planet?

Why would you care though ?

 

[Papahyooie]

I'm afraid you've made an assumption yourself I never indicated that being for those things I mentioned put you at odds with either stance, I just wanted to know how those things could be a bad thing, no matter how we come at them

You made those statements as a contrasting argument. You were insinuating that it doesn't matter the means, because their goal was to promote a bunch of good things, thereby also insinuating that one should accept the means if the ends are acceptable. I was simply pointing out that this is not the case. You directly said "How are these ideas bad?" That insinuates that you believe that one who disagrees with the means also believes that these ideas are bad. As I've pointed out again, that's simply not the case. That's what we call a false dichotomy. You may have never outright said so, but what you said had a clear implication.