What's new

Weather Network ****s on Breitbart climate article

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 848
  • Start date Start date
Some quick responses:

#1-A majority of developed countries are a part of the Paris Climate Agreement. US needs to lead by example.

#2-Making little changes in your life can greatly reduce your carbon/pollution footprint. The two biggest polluters that you can quickly make changes are your electricity and the food you eat/buy. Electricity production is the biggest polluter. Switching to solar or purchasing wind REC's will dramatically help cut down your footprint. Then focus on cutting or reducing your red meat intake and try and buy as much local produce as possible. All these options are not only good for the local environment but will help your local economy and your health.

#3-The creation of solar panels isn't perfect. But it's a billion times better than blasting our earth for oil, creating earthquakes, polluting fresh water, and destroying land. Only to then take that substance and burn it into the air we breath. Unfortunately you can't make energy out of nothing...that goes against science. But I believe absorbing the suns energy is our best shot. And no... I don't sell solar panels (nothing wrong with that profession if you're not a sleazeball). My degree is in Environmental Science and I develop utility scale solar farms in New England.

#4-Trump can't stop renewable energy. Solar prices are dropping like a rock and utility prices continue to rise. Solar is already at grid parity in most states.

Solar is going to be the economical energy for homes and other stationary point uses. Everything that goes into solar is recyclable and will be re-used rather than end up in the dumps.

I have no objection to rooftop solar, but carpeting our beautiful and irreplaceable desert valleys with solar is an abomination, a corporate abomination as well as an environmental abomination.

I think cold fusion research is warming up, and again, the material used are recyclable, and the deuterium in water is abundant enough and recoverable enough that this could be our major industrial source of power in the future, maybe twenty to forty years out.

I think conventional nuclear power can be "cleaned up" and the byproducts effectively contained, and power produced safely. Just don't allow designs that have China Syndrome potentials, use bigger reactors with less concentrated nuclear components, and use byproduct radioactives, encased in glass at levels that won't melt the glass, submerged in ponds, to preheat water for the generation cycle, stuff like that.

Although coal and oil are evidently still available and in the case of coal and natural gas fairly abundant, we should not have an economy based on these resources alone, and conservation of depletable resources, even nuclear, is a always going to be good long-term planning.

We don't need to accept any plan that reduces human productivity, technology, or living standards. And we don't need a fascist world government like the UN.
 
Just read that Leonardo DiCaprio and his foundation met with the President elect at his HQ in New York. They presented a plan on how focusing on renewable energy could create millions of jobs.

At least he is listening. This is after a meeting with his wife to present her with this info. Possibly a follow up meeting next month.
 
Just read that Leonardo DiCaprio and his foundation met with the President elect at his HQ in New York. They presented a plan on how focusing on renewable energy could create millions of jobs.

At least he is listening. This is after a meeting with his wife to present her with this info. Possibly a follow up meeting next month.

Good job trump.
 
Trump isn't the hero we deserve, but maybe he's the hero we need right now.


Lol I almost said that with a straight face. Heh.
 
I'm sorry, but did you read the article you Googled? They're trying to figure out whether it really is 97%, or if it's more like 86%. Either way, it's a vast majority. And no, the 97% does not come from op-ed pieces. It comes from a 2009 survey of a few thousand scientists. As the WSJ points out, it's only 97% if you include active climate scientists. I'm sure if you only include computer programmers or whatever, you'll end up with the same percentage as average educated Americans.

Here's a wikipedia graph that shows various scientific surveys on the subject.

Climate_science_opinion2.png


So as you can see, the absolute vast majority of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

But you're sucking me into a stupid argument that I have no interest in. What is important is that you presented NOTHING. No data, no questioning of climate science modeling and results, no alternative explanations of current data. Not a single thing. A laughable article that surveys oil engineers, and an irrelevant op-ed piece in WSJ.

So ignoring all the Hackisque garbage about "leftist tactics", I don't disagree with you because your opinion goes against the grain. I am not making an appeal to authority. I think in face of overwhelming evidence, you offered nothing of substance (except for a quick Google search, which you apparently did not even look at).

So in the immortal words of Wolfgang Pauli, it's not that you're not right. You're not even wrong.

Don't forget this part.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.
 
Apparently the President-Elect met with Al gore as well. I will give him this as a positive, he seems to be listening to a wide stretch of people on issues. Read a report that he has called the President a couple times for advice and opinions on different people. Even stated that the Presidents recommendation on one person is the reason the President elect named him a cabinet member.
 
Apparently the President-Elect met with Al gore as well. I will give him this as a positive, he seems to be listening to a wide stretch of people on issues. Read a report that he has called the President a couple times for advice and opinions on different people. Even stated that the Presidents recommendation on one person is the reason the President elect named him a cabinet member.

Good to hear.
 
Some quick responses:

#1-A majority of developed countries are a part of the Paris Climate Agreement. US needs to lead by example.

#2-Making little changes in your life can greatly reduce your carbon/pollution footprint. The two biggest polluters that you can quickly make changes are your electricity and the food you eat/buy. Electricity production is the biggest polluter. Switching to solar or purchasing wind REC's will dramatically help cut down your footprint. Then focus on cutting or reducing your red meat intake and try and buy as much local produce as possible. All these options are not only good for the local environment but will help your local economy and your health.

#3-The creation of solar panels isn't perfect. But it's a billion times better than blasting our earth for oil, creating earthquakes, polluting fresh water, and destroying land. Only to then take that substance and burn it into the air we breath. Unfortunately you can't make energy out of nothing...that goes against science. But I believe absorbing the suns energy is our best shot. And no... I don't sell solar panels (nothing wrong with that profession if you're not a sleazeball). My degree is in Environmental Science and I develop utility scale solar farms in New England.

#4-Trump can't stop renewable energy. Solar prices are dropping like a rock and utility prices continue to rise. Solar is already at grid parity in most states.

CalthorpeChartBig.jpg

https://www.citylab.com/housing/2011/12/missing-link-climate-change-single-family-suburban-homes/650/
 
Is that the new "thanks Obama"?
No, I was being sincere.
As much as I didnt want trump for president, I have no problem praising him when I think he makes a good decision.
 
Stoked, you tend to speak in moral absolutes. "We must change", that sort of language. My question for those of you who take this religious view of we must restore planet earth is at what point does "we must get better" become best outcome? When it comes to environmental outrage, there is seemingly no end in sight to improving. It's as cliche as every police district press conference claiming they are doing good but there is always room for improvement. At what point is mission accomplished?

There is a point where environmental activism actually creates regulations that create more pollution than they prevent. I can give you a simple example. New regulations require cabinet manufacturers to cut topcoat, adhesive, stain, enamel, basecoat, etc. emissions by roughly half across the board. Now, instead of having long-lasting finishings on your cabinets, they will go to **** within six months and you will have to sand down, landfill the old paint, and repaint all the time. Did cutting those emissions by half up-front actually save anything?

That's a simple example. I can give you plenty more.


Also, beanclown is full of **** if he's claiming to be an environmental scientist. Any self respecting environmental scientist would never claim that air quality is deteriorating (absurd, it has measurably improved for what, 50 straight years now), that deforestration is accelerating (absurd, it has measurably improved for what, 50 straight years), that water quality is deteriorating (absurd, it has measurably improved for what, 50 straight years), have a slanted emphasis on air and water only, without recognizing the third pollution sink that the solar panel industry utilizes most (earth), pretending the USEPA, Superfund (CERCLA), Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Clean Water and Air Acts, Brownfield cleanup, etc. etc. has not significantly improved the environment... Or claim that heavily subsidized and deregulated solar is on price parity with heavily taxed and regulated with newly initiated burdensome regulations on traditional energy. That is as dishonest a stance as you can take yet beanclown makes it as many times as he can. So much for being the honest eh beanclown?

Beanclown acts like the industrial revolution never existed. Those who think the environment is in irreparable disarray are a product of indoctrination. If you really want to improve our environment then start lobbying for the government to purchase up and protect in perpetuity the edge habitats, winter preserves, and wetlands that have been continuously deteriorated by developers over the last century.
 
Back
Top