On the Insidiousness of "We have 12 Years to Save the Planet." - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15004356
Hong Wu wrote:(2) A persistent belief in climate experts despite many incidents of incorrect predictions and faked data. This is a very strong belief in authority figures and experts.


It's worse than that because the consensus they're always touting is totally fake. They cherry pick their experts and try to pretend the thirty percent of scientists that view CAGW as highly implausible either don't exist or are corrupted by money. And when you point out that the establishment offers much more powerful incentives to go alarmist they just go into obtuse denial. The alarmists are so far up their own asses it's ridiculous. Alarmists are ridiculous people.
#15004365
1- The Judeo-Christian God as depicted in the bible is clearly not benevolent. He flooded the entire world and destroyed all life save for what could fit on one boat. Plus all the plagues he directly delivered on Egypt.

4- Many environmentalists recognise nuclear energy as the cleanest, safest and least impactful source of energy. You're not paying much attention if you're unaware of that. The biggest concern currently is that implementation is too slow and nuclear was a great option 20 years ago but it's too late now.
#15004371
AFAIK wrote: nuclear was a great option 20 years ago but it's too late now.


Yeah, it's too late for anything but genocidal "renewables". I guess we're just gonna have to drive billions of people into a slow death by energy poverty in order to save them from a slow death by global warming. :lol: :knife:
#15004397
AFAIK wrote:4- Many environmentalists recognise nuclear energy as the cleanest, safest and least impactful source of energy. You're not paying much attention if you're unaware of that. The biggest concern currently is that implementation is too slow and nuclear was a great option 20 years ago but it's too late now.

This is absurd. No one has successfully implemented renewables in a way that matches their goals so how could nuclear power be considered too slow? Too slow compared to what?

You are literally saying that environmentalists are pro-nuclear and then attacking it in the same argument.
#15004433
AFAIK wrote:1- The Judeo-Christian God as depicted in the bible is clearly not benevolent. He flooded the entire world and destroyed all life save for what could fit on one boat. Plus all the plagues he directly delivered on Egypt.

God's plan to save the human race. I don't think I can explain it. It's complicated.
#15004472
Yeah, it's too late for anything but genocidal "renewables". I guess we're just gonna have to drive billions of people into a slow death by energy poverty in order to save them from a slow death by global warming


Really? So you have some notion that renewable energy is "genocidal"? What an abject load of shit.

You actually believe that renewable energy is going to "drive billions of people to a slow death"?

You are becoming unhinged. Please explain exactly how this might happen. Is there something about the electricity generated from the sun that is more dangerous than the electricity generated from coal? :roll:

Air pollution from coal plants in China results in well over 1.5 million deaths per year. I take it from your post that if they stopped burning coal and started using nuclear, hydro power or solar that those megawatts would be far more dangerous than the coal pollution.

You need to get a grip.
#15004479
Hong Wu wrote:Some further thoughts I've had on climate change:

What are prerequisites to believe in climate change?


The only thing needed is the ability to read and critically analyse scientific papers.

(1) A lack of a belief in God in any active, benevolent kind of way. You could still believe in God while believing in climate change as a serious threat but it would be a God that would allow people to destroy their own planet; I'm not sure how that can mesh with lots of the other liberal conceptions of God.


No. Many climatologists believe in the Christian god.

The only relationship between climate science and belief in god is that some Christians and Creationists and therefore do not believe in the validity of the natural sciences. This is very rare outside the US, so it is ignored most of the time.

(2) A persistent belief in climate experts despite many incidents of incorrect predictions and faked data. This is a very strong belief in authority figures and experts.


The irony.

First of all, there have been very few incorrect predictions by climate scientists, and there is no faked data.

If you think incorrect predictions and faked data are the norm, you probably have a persistent belief in the authority and expertise of the liars who peddled this information.

(3) Accepting either the Green New Deal or having an interesting take on Germany's failed projects; what are we actually supposed to do about it?


If you think that all people wanting to do something about climate change are married to these two things, whatever they are, then you are wrong.

(4) A weird blind spot regarding nuclear power since if we strictly wanted to go zero-emissions, wouldn't the occasional nuclear problem be worth saving the planet?


I have no problem with nuclear energy.

But conservatives have problems with handing out nuclear technologies to the global south. I have no problem with Iran having a nuclear program. Do you?

Hong Wu wrote:This is absurd. No one has successfully implemented renewables in a way that matches their goals ....


This is incorrect. Quebec, for example, gets most of their power from hydro-electricity.
#15004482
Pants-of-dog wrote:But conservatives have problems with handing out nuclear technologies to the global south. I have no problem with Iran having a nuclear program. Do you?

It isn't just conservatives. Anyone concerned about potential jihadis having nuclear bomb technology ought to have a few doubts about the Islamic regime of Iran having nuclear tech. Peace through Mutually Assured Destruction breaks down if a party doesn't care about dying or even wants to die.
#15004528
Drlee wrote:Really? So you have some notion that renewable energy is "genocidal"? What an abject load of shit.

You actually believe that renewable energy is going to "drive billions of people to a slow death"?

You are becoming unhinged. Please explain exactly how this might happen. Is there something about the electricity generated from the sun that is more dangerous than the electricity generated from coal? :roll:

Air pollution from coal plants in China results in well over 1.5 million deaths per year. I take it from your post that if they stopped burning coal and started using nuclear, hydro power or solar that those megawatts would be far more dangerous than the coal pollution.

You need to get a grip.


Jackass ignorant as always, Drlee.

Renewables are more expensive and less efficient than carbon energy, over a billion people are already in extreme energy poverty or on the knife edge of it. Energy poverty causes disease and death. If the cost of energy goes up by even a couple of pennies, hundreds of millions of people will be condemned to the slow miserable death that energy poverty imposes.


You need to get a fucking clue. :knife:
#15004530
Energy Poverty Is Much Worse for the Poor Than Climate Change
Forcing poor people to forego economic development in order to prevent climate change is 'morally dubious'

Some 1.2 billion people do not have access to electricity, according to the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook 2016 report. About 2.7 billion still cook and heat their dwellings with wood, crop residues, and dung. In its main scenario for the trajectory of global energy consumption, the IEA projects that in 2040, half a billion people will still lack access to electricity and 1.8 billion will still be cooking and heating by burning biomass
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... qPzDsJm3K_
#15004540
Renewables are more expensive and less efficient than carbon energy, over a billion people are already in extreme energy poverty or on the knife edge of it. Energy poverty causes disease and death. If the cost of energy goes up by even a couple of pennies, hundreds of millions of people will be condemned to the slow miserable death that energy poverty imposes.


:lol:

Oh wait. No one line posts.

:lol:

Rubbish
#15004541
Sivad wrote:Renewables are more expensive


Not necessarily.

Quebec uses hydroelectric power and has lower electricity costs than almost anywhere else in Canada, where fossil fuels are the norm.

http://www.hydroquebec.com/residential/ ... rices.html

and less efficient than carbon energy,


No. If you look at energy returned per unit of energy invested over the entire life of the method of generating electricity, renewable sources are more efficient.
#15004543
Drlee wrote:Air pollution from coal plants in China results in well over 1.5 million deaths per year.


Estimates for deaths due to indoor burning of biomass(wood, dung, crop resin) are as high as 4 million per year. And that's on top of all the birth defects and chronic illness it causes. The hard fact is that raising the cost of energy by mandating renewables will needlessly kill and maim millions upon millions of the poorest and most vulnerable people.
#15004544
Well you are just wrong. Everyone surprised raise your mouse.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/renewable-energy-investment-developed-world-developing-world-ren21-report-a7058436.html

China, often portrayed as a polluted, coal-powered villain in debates on climate change, topped a league table for investment in renewable power and fuels apart from large-scale hydro, followed by the US, Japan, the UK and India.

And Mauritania came first in a league based on investment in proportion to GDP, followed by Honduras, Uruguay, Morocco and Jamaica.

The report added: “Bangladesh is the world’s largest market for solar home systems, and other developing countries (e.g., Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania in Africa; China, India and Nepal in Asia; Brazil and Guyana in Latin America) are seeing rapid expansion of small-scale renewable systems, including renewables-based mini-grids, to provide electricity for people living far from the grid.”

China, it said, had played a “dominant role” in the industry, increasing its investment by 17 per cent. This accounted for a staggering 36 per cent of the total global investment.

“Renewable energy investment also increased significantly in India, South Africa, Mexico and Chile. Other developing countries investing more than $500m (about £345m) in renewables in 2015 included Morocco, Uruguay, the Philippines, Pakistan and Honduras," the REN21 report said.

“By contrast, renewable energy investment in developed countries as a group declined by eight per cent in 2015, to $130bn (about £90bn).
Central Americans turn coffee into renewable energy

“The most significant decrease was seen in Europe (down 21 per cent to $48.8bn), despite the region’s record year of financing for offshore wind power ($17 billion, up 11 per cent from 2014).

“In the United States, renewable energy investment (dominated largely by solar power) increased by 19 per cent to $44.1bn, the country’s largest increase in dollar terms since 2011.”


Same article: She said poorer countries were increasingly turning to renewable energy partly because it was now so "cost-effective".

"Countries are opting for renewables because they are not only the most environmentally sound, but also the cheapest option," Ms Lins said. "It's a clear signal of its economic viability."


It would be more fun if you were a good troll. You really need to up your game.
#15004545
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. If you look at energy returned per unit of energy invested over the entire life of the method of generating electricity, renewable sources are more efficient.


Yeah, they got plenty of fake ass junkonomics to help push their psychotic energy austerity, but that's all been thoroughly debunked. Solar and Wind cannot compete with coal, both are way more expensive and far less efficient.
#15004548
No, and since you have not and will not provide evidence, there is no reason to keep discussing this with you.

And for those who would like evidence about energy return over energy investment over the life cycle of an electricity generating plant, and how much more efficient renewables are compared to fossil fuels, please see table 2 on this page:

https://www.world-nuclear.org/informati ... tment.aspx
#15004553
Note that the cost of either unsubsidized wind or unsubsidized solar is greater than that of coal or nuclear, at both the cheap and the expensive ends of the spectrum. And that is without considering the extra costs:

• capital cost of equivalent installed fossil-fuel or other dispatchable capacity, for times when the wind or sun are not available.

• running cost of equivalent installed fossil-fuel or other dispatchable capacity, which must be kept online at very inefficient operation for times when the wind or sun are not available.

• transmission lines from the areas (generally well away from the population centers) which are suitable and large enough for wind or solar.

Starting out more expensive and adding in all of those additional costs, I’m sorry, but that dog won’t hunt.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 12

https://twitter.com/SaveManMedia/status/1183357222[…]

Canadian Federal Election

I already explained that. It involves democracy an[…]

What does she mean when she mentions white suprem[…]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk-BP[…]