Climate change. We get it ... it’s a mess you don’t want to think about.

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Bowerbird, Mar 1, 2022.

  1. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    77,212
    Likes Received:
    62,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
  2. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    10,192
    Likes Received:
    4,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Joe knows, drluggit and gfm7175 like this.
  3. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    10,192
    Likes Received:
    4,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    CKW, FatBack, Joe knows and 4 others like this.
  4. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    10,192
    Likes Received:
    4,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's a fight brewing among the green energy advocates.
    Solar Geoengineering and Deep Ecology: ‘Just Say No’ (climate alarmists running out of options)
    Guest Blogger
    Those wedded to climate alarmism/forced energy transformation are in a desperate hour. The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 was ignored and died. The Paris Accord of 2015 (“a fraud … a fake” stated James…


    “Given the increasing normalization of solar geoengineering research, a strong political message to block these technologies is required. An International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering is needed now.”

    “The speculative possibility of future solar geoengineering risks becoming a powerful argument for industry lobbyists, climate denialists, and some governments to delay decarbonization policies.”

    Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement

    It is hard being green. Battling against energy density in the age of high-energy civilization is a set-up for failure so long as citizen-voters have a say. People want reliable, affordable energy. And poor people without modern energy want and need it the most. That means oil, gas, and coal–not wind, solar, and batteries.

    Those wedded to climate alarmism/forced energy transformation are in a desperate hour. The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 was ignored and died. The Paris Accord of 2015 (“a fraud … a fake” stated James Hansen) is dying. COP 26 did nothing, and COP27 is already in trouble. The ‘energy transition’ needs to be away from dilute, intermittent sources toward dense mineral energies. . . .
     
    Joe knows and bringiton like this.
  5. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    7,079
    Likes Received:
    3,207
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    vman12, FatBack, Joe knows and 3 others like this.
  6. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    10,192
    Likes Received:
    4,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If only the committed climate change advocates among climate scientists would in fact go on strike. Fingers crossed.
    The New Climate Strike – What a Good Idea
    Kip Hansen
    ““The science-society contract is broken. … We explore three options for the climate change science community. We find that two options are untenable and one is unpalatable.“. . .
     
    Joe knows likes this.
  7. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    10,192
    Likes Received:
    4,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    gfm7175 and Joe knows like this.
  8. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    10,192
    Likes Received:
    4,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  9. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    24,637
    Likes Received:
    21,770
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ask again why progressive climate alarmists want to take away accessible energy. Control comes to mind. Folks Freezing in the winters from lack of affordable energy comes to mind. Progressives have a tight rope to walk here. First, they don't want folks to enjoy life, they want them to suffer, because to suffer is to be subservient and agreeable to tyranny. And after all, that is what the greenies now demand. Subservience, compliance, obedience. All are interchangeable goals of "climate change" advocates these days. When folks like Bill Gates claim the world wouldn't miss 1.8 Billion people... yo have to start really asking WTF and who would listen to any of these folks anymore....
     
    Joe knows, bringiton, gfm7175 and 2 others like this.
  10. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,899
    Likes Received:
    3,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Putin agrees with you, and appreciates your assistance...

    Like most American politics, there is a lot of crap floating around...

    So let me give you the cooks tour. We aren't doing anything worth talking about.

    The first step, when we get serious, has to be an incremental Carbon Tax. I always get a dimwitted comment about that, so let me assure you, it will be rebated to most Americans.

    The cost of this is going to keep going up, eventually we will be forced to abandon cities, and it will cripple the economy.

    But the fun possibility is a hurricane flooding NYC. That would crash the economy overnight, and it would take at least a generation to recover.

    One of the primary functions of a government is managing risk. We've been doing a dreadful job on that front..
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2022
  11. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    10,192
    Likes Received:
    4,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    These risks are no more real than the Boogie Man.
     
    Joe knows, bringiton and gfm7175 like this.
  12. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    10,192
    Likes Received:
    4,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Joe knows likes this.
  13. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    24,637
    Likes Received:
    21,770
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hmm.. Nice try. Affordable energy in the US isn't dependent on what Putin does, or doesn't do. We have sufficient reserves to be energy independent all by ourselves. Y'all can keep your tour to yourself. We don't need more impediments to energy and or increased cost. What we do need is to recognize the approach for what it is. Tyranny. Why again are you supporting this?

    And no, one of government's jobs isn't to manage risk. It's to ensure the rights and liberties of its citizens are respected. Bureaucrats talk like you do. Government isn't the steadying hand, it's the raging bull that crashes the china shop. Hurricanes are a fact of life, scary "what if" doesn't justify any of the pain to the nation you'd prescribe.
     
    Mrs. b., gfm7175 and Jack Hays like this.
  14. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,899
    Likes Received:
    3,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    While there is a ton of wrong in your post, I am going to focus on one aspect of your ignorance.

    We stopped being energy independent roughly a half century ago. Ever hear of OPEC??

    We became energy independent for a while during the Obama years, due to the fracking boom. While there are a lot of small pockets you can frack, this is not going to make us independent for long.

    It's a good idea, but that's not how we get there.
     
  15. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    24,637
    Likes Received:
    21,770
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hmm...I suppose this is how most bureaucrats react when they find out that folks don't actually need them to tell them what they should or shouldn't be doing.
     
    gfm7175 and yabberefugee like this.
  16. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,899
    Likes Received:
    3,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You were wrong, it's where you live.
     
  17. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    10,192
    Likes Received:
    4,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The US has enough dry natural gas reserves to last 84 years.
     
    Joe knows likes this.
  18. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    7,079
    Likes Received:
    3,207
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Bingo. DING DING DING!!! We have a winner!!

    Indeed.

    Bingo.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  19. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,899
    Likes Received:
    3,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No source, no text to provide context...

    That isn't helpful.

    First, you are going to have to convince the natural gas companies (which are mostly shell companies of Big Oil) to increase their production dramatically for a temporary situation.

    Second, then you have to actually build the pipelines, terminals and ships to get that gas to Europe.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2022
  20. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    10,192
    Likes Received:
    4,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your post to which I replied (#14) made no mention of Europe or infrastructure. Please specify the location of your goalposts. Meanwhile:
    Assuming the same annual rate of U.S. dry natural gas production in 2019 of nearly 34 Tcf, the United States has enough dry natural gas to last about 84 years.Feb 3, 2021

    How much natural gas does the United States have, and ... - EIA
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2022
    Mushroom likes this.
  21. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    24,637
    Likes Received:
    21,770
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know we try to be helpful by supplying the citations, and the scientific data, but at some point, it does get tiring having to constantly battle the endless goal post relocations. The truth of the matter is that we have sufficient energy. Could we research to try other options? Sure. And when they become economically viable, the markets will adopt them. I still just can't for the life of me understand why the AGW faithful or so myopic in their refusal to understand that the leaders of their movement constantly flout their levels of energy consumption at the same time they want others to suffer from its absence.

    We may yet see $7 a gallon gas in the US. Not because gas is scarce, but because hysteria is running away with the futures markets. Biden has succeeded in doubling the price of oil bbl just be being president and not otherwise stopping the war in the Ukraine.

    And isn't that really what the AGW leadership want? Folks making decisions between driving, or heating their homes and food? Isn't this what the Soviets did to their people?
     
    gfm7175 and Jack Hays like this.
  22. alicecullen

    alicecullen Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2022
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Female
    let's suppose for a second that those were the goals of climate change advocates (though they quite obviously are not). even if they are why do you Care. explain to me in a coherent manner why subservience is inherently a bad thing
     
  23. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    24,637
    Likes Received:
    21,770
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suppose you aren't then a citizen of a nation that respects your rights or liberties. If you cannot see the value of them, there isn't a conversation to be had, is there? Your starting point assumes there would be an inherent inequality, something common in the Democratic party narratives these days. Y'all talk about equity, but what you really want is subservience. The US constitution isn't about subservience, except to the extent that it requires government to be a servant of the people, something democrats ignored long ago.
     
    gfm7175 and Jack Hays like this.
  24. alicecullen

    alicecullen Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2022
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Female
    america, yes.
    let me stop you right there - i'm not a democrat and nothing i said presupposes that there must be pre-existing inequality.
    okay, this doesn't answer my question. you still haven't explained why subservience is inherently a bad thing.

    try again.
     
  25. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    24,637
    Likes Received:
    21,770
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Basic observation. Subservience requires inequity. You deny it, but it must be a condition of the discussion. Ignoring it allows you the fantasy of subservience being a good thing. You're suggesting it isn't bad, so it must be good then, no?

    I don't know a conservative person who would tell you that subservience is not bad. Do you feel that you owe your service to others inherently? If so, to whom, and why?
     
    gfm7175 and Jack Hays like this.

Share This Page