Windmills killing whales, difficulty disposing of the windmills. Solar kills birds. EV battery lithium is mined by children. Let’s just stick to good ol fossil fuels instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. Just my opinion. Carry on 😊
I don't buy into the "we need to substantively harm our economy because ..." arguments, but I also see fossil fuels as a very imperfect solution for energy, and spewing a lot of filth in the air, whatever the outcome. Solar's getting to the point of making financial sense in many sectors and, if I could, I'd snap my fingers to have nuclear fuel much of our electricity. I suspect technology upgrades, more than overly crusading politicians, will get us there.
The batteries are still not capable (private money research into improving them is fine, my tax dollars funding research is not). Can't hold enough energy, can't store enough energy, and can't convert a high enough ratio of solar into electricity. We are light-years (haha) away from panels being viable. Once you add in they are currently not recyclable and create deadly toxins in their production, they're a net loss for the environment. I wish we would use more nuclear, as it is statically better in almost every measurable way.
And aren’t the lunatics seeding the atmosphere with nano particles of chemicals and aluminum to try to dim the sun? Look at the toxic chem trails criss-crossing the sky. I used to heat my house in the winter on sunny days by opening my sun porch sliding door into the kitchen with the porch roof shades open. Now it doesn’t get nearly as warm. Something is changing and it is human-caused meddling with our lives!
The "chemtrails" you see are likely contrails made of water vapor condensing around dust particles in the atmosphere. In other words, they're water, not chemicals. The chemtrail conspiracy theory goes back to the '90s, and it has no basis in reality and no bearing on the weather. Don't worry about it.
I find him to be an articulate defender of mostly liberal positions. Someone coming at us with facts and reason is by no means a troll, even if I disagree.
And, for what it's worth, airplane vapors aren't chemtrails, and I've yet to see any credible source backing up those claims. (I do my best these days to avoid the world "conspiracy.")
He uses big words sure. But he responds to everyone like they are ignorant while only being able to parrot headlines.
Honest questions: how long does water vapor hang visibly in the air? And if Gates & Co admit to releasing partials to block the sun why are we saying they aren't?
I have read what I believe are credible accounts of the difference in dispersion patterns and speed between authentic airplane vapor trails and chemical or “chem trails” patterning the sky. We know Gates is planning to effect weather patterns; why is it not credible to believe he has launched trial runs in sunny areas like mine?
What is the "right" level of glaciation, which is directly related to global temperature? The inhabitants of Doggerland, the submerged land bridge between Britain and Europe, and the Huna Tlingit, whose ancestral home has been revealed as the glacier that defines Glacier Bay retreated over the years since its "discovery" in 1794 by Vancouver, might disagree.
"So why do we only hear 'we’re all gonna die!' incessantly from scientists in the media? Because dire warnings get media coverage. And frankly, dire warnings are what people click on."
The coverage I see in the mainstream media is a lot more nuanced than that, and it's based on scientific consensus, not hysteria. If 99% of scientists say climate change is real, humans are causing it, and it's going to hurt the planet, I believe them.
"We don’t have more hurricane threats."
NOAA says sea level rise caused by climate change will produce hurricanes with more intense flooding, even if the number of hurricanes doesn't increase.
"The polar bear population is actually increasing."
The population is leveling off after increasing for decades due to restrictions on overhunting enacted since the '70s. But scientists say continued sea ice melt will mean fewer polar bears.
"More people die of cold every year than heat, by a wide margin."
That's like saying driving under the influence of fentanyl is OK because more DUI fatalities are associated with alcohol. And anyway, humans are less at risk from heat directly than from the way climate change alters the ecosystem and the economy. The Spectator article is by Matt Ridley, a failed British banker whose claims are rejected by most scientists.
"Warmer temperatures can extend growing seasons, allowing farmers more time to cultivate crops. This has the potential to increase food yields and decrease prices, helping to feed a growing global population."
A longer growing season is good for some crops, but climate change generally threatens agriculture by causing erratic rainfall patterns that deplete soil nutrients, increasing the threat of wildfires, and threatening pollinators like bees and butterflies. Climate change could also increase the trend of mass migration, which strains food supplies in destination countries.
And personally, I moved my family away from a remote, fire-prone area a few years ago because of repeated evacuations and close calls with wildfires. One got within half a mile of our house. It's become a fact of life up there since the 2010s. Homes in that area are now virtually uninsurable except through a state-run pool. Insurance actuaries aren't swayed by politics or media hype; their determinations are based on data, and they're convinced that droughts and weather patterns associated with climate change are posing an unacceptable level of risk to large swaths of California.
Of the 99 % that agree climate change is real, the degree they believe it is effecting climate, and the prescriptions to mitigate it could offer a huge spectrum of answers. The majority of this group may also agree the denser the fuel, the faster the path to decarbonization, and come up with different, less apocalyptic scenarios for mitigation. The 99 % is really meaningless. Besides it’s probably 1 % of the populations that have the smarts, determination, passion, and vision to change the world. Nuclear energy is the bi-partisan issue of our time. You may want to see rapid decarbonization. I want to see rapid energy equity occur. Worldwide demand for energy will more than double by 2050. For vastly different reasons we may be able to agree on a multi-decade transition from natural gas, to fission, then fusion. Fission has the excess clean power to make hydrogen fuels, carbon capture, desalination of sea water, process heat for manufacturing, and load following wind and solar ( weather dependent technologies). So, climate change fast, climate change slow, or climate change no - we all agree we’re going to need massive amounts of new sources of clean energy fairly fast. Nuclear is fast gaining the public’s support as a solution. The physics of power production demonstrate it is a viable option to produce clean energy now at scale. Let’s get on the same bus for the next leg of the journey.
Now if I can get your agreement that natural gas has to fill the gap until we get there I think we can approach The Hill with a bi-partisan proposal. Natural gas is the next densest fuel option after coal and oil, will emit half the CO2 of coal (without particulate pollution), and keep the surface footprint tiny. We can then transfer those plants to Small Modular Reactors in the future, and the owners will do it because they will be cheaper to operate using fission. Fusion is making great strides fast. But we have to keep ignition going longer, and gain a much better understanding of what happens to the spent neutrons inside the casing, as just two of many areas that will require answers. Fission is here now, and offers many of the benefits fusion will offer. Solar on roofs only ( cut subsidies to equal nuclear subsidies)wind by the wayside ( the biggest debacle of the 21st century). That’s a formula that passes a physics test and could gain broad public support if explained well. Want to join forces?
Ah, finally a voice of reason. No, we aren't going to end the planet tomorrow. However, we do need to treat the planet better.
And the windmill’s are killing our whales
Windmills killing whales, difficulty disposing of the windmills. Solar kills birds. EV battery lithium is mined by children. Let’s just stick to good ol fossil fuels instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. Just my opinion. Carry on 😊
Oh, I might sacrifice some whales.
I don't buy into the "we need to substantively harm our economy because ..." arguments, but I also see fossil fuels as a very imperfect solution for energy, and spewing a lot of filth in the air, whatever the outcome. Solar's getting to the point of making financial sense in many sectors and, if I could, I'd snap my fingers to have nuclear fuel much of our electricity. I suspect technology upgrades, more than overly crusading politicians, will get us there.
Good point on nuclear 🤔! Enjoy your articles, and point of view, even different points of view. I like to stay informed and make educated decisions.
The batteries are still not capable (private money research into improving them is fine, my tax dollars funding research is not). Can't hold enough energy, can't store enough energy, and can't convert a high enough ratio of solar into electricity. We are light-years (haha) away from panels being viable. Once you add in they are currently not recyclable and create deadly toxins in their production, they're a net loss for the environment. I wish we would use more nuclear, as it is statically better in almost every measurable way.
And aren’t the lunatics seeding the atmosphere with nano particles of chemicals and aluminum to try to dim the sun? Look at the toxic chem trails criss-crossing the sky. I used to heat my house in the winter on sunny days by opening my sun porch sliding door into the kitchen with the porch roof shades open. Now it doesn’t get nearly as warm. Something is changing and it is human-caused meddling with our lives!
The "chemtrails" you see are likely contrails made of water vapor condensing around dust particles in the atmosphere. In other words, they're water, not chemicals. The chemtrail conspiracy theory goes back to the '90s, and it has no basis in reality and no bearing on the weather. Don't worry about it.
https://futurism.com/scientists-calling-dim-sun-geoengineering
He's dense, condescending, and conditioned. I find it best not to feed that particular troll.
I find him to be an articulate defender of mostly liberal positions. Someone coming at us with facts and reason is by no means a troll, even if I disagree.
And, for what it's worth, airplane vapors aren't chemtrails, and I've yet to see any credible source backing up those claims. (I do my best these days to avoid the world "conspiracy.")
He uses big words sure. But he responds to everyone like they are ignorant while only being able to parrot headlines.
Honest questions: how long does water vapor hang visibly in the air? And if Gates & Co admit to releasing partials to block the sun why are we saying they aren't?
I have read what I believe are credible accounts of the difference in dispersion patterns and speed between authentic airplane vapor trails and chemical or “chem trails” patterning the sky. We know Gates is planning to effect weather patterns; why is it not credible to believe he has launched trial runs in sunny areas like mine?
Too many damn leftists push climate crisis & yet do NOTHING to deter crisis IE drive EVs
All politics & tired of being "used"
NO climate activists even drive EVs
What is the "right" level of glaciation, which is directly related to global temperature? The inhabitants of Doggerland, the submerged land bridge between Britain and Europe, and the Huna Tlingit, whose ancestral home has been revealed as the glacier that defines Glacier Bay retreated over the years since its "discovery" in 1794 by Vancouver, might disagree.
"So why do we only hear 'we’re all gonna die!' incessantly from scientists in the media? Because dire warnings get media coverage. And frankly, dire warnings are what people click on."
The coverage I see in the mainstream media is a lot more nuanced than that, and it's based on scientific consensus, not hysteria. If 99% of scientists say climate change is real, humans are causing it, and it's going to hurt the planet, I believe them.
"We don’t have more hurricane threats."
NOAA says sea level rise caused by climate change will produce hurricanes with more intense flooding, even if the number of hurricanes doesn't increase.
"The polar bear population is actually increasing."
The population is leveling off after increasing for decades due to restrictions on overhunting enacted since the '70s. But scientists say continued sea ice melt will mean fewer polar bears.
"More people die of cold every year than heat, by a wide margin."
That's like saying driving under the influence of fentanyl is OK because more DUI fatalities are associated with alcohol. And anyway, humans are less at risk from heat directly than from the way climate change alters the ecosystem and the economy. The Spectator article is by Matt Ridley, a failed British banker whose claims are rejected by most scientists.
"Warmer temperatures can extend growing seasons, allowing farmers more time to cultivate crops. This has the potential to increase food yields and decrease prices, helping to feed a growing global population."
A longer growing season is good for some crops, but climate change generally threatens agriculture by causing erratic rainfall patterns that deplete soil nutrients, increasing the threat of wildfires, and threatening pollinators like bees and butterflies. Climate change could also increase the trend of mass migration, which strains food supplies in destination countries.
And personally, I moved my family away from a remote, fire-prone area a few years ago because of repeated evacuations and close calls with wildfires. One got within half a mile of our house. It's become a fact of life up there since the 2010s. Homes in that area are now virtually uninsurable except through a state-run pool. Insurance actuaries aren't swayed by politics or media hype; their determinations are based on data, and they're convinced that droughts and weather patterns associated with climate change are posing an unacceptable level of risk to large swaths of California.
Wow, you really took the bait - hook, line, and sinker. Too bad.
How so?
Of the 99 % that agree climate change is real, the degree they believe it is effecting climate, and the prescriptions to mitigate it could offer a huge spectrum of answers. The majority of this group may also agree the denser the fuel, the faster the path to decarbonization, and come up with different, less apocalyptic scenarios for mitigation. The 99 % is really meaningless. Besides it’s probably 1 % of the populations that have the smarts, determination, passion, and vision to change the world. Nuclear energy is the bi-partisan issue of our time. You may want to see rapid decarbonization. I want to see rapid energy equity occur. Worldwide demand for energy will more than double by 2050. For vastly different reasons we may be able to agree on a multi-decade transition from natural gas, to fission, then fusion. Fission has the excess clean power to make hydrogen fuels, carbon capture, desalination of sea water, process heat for manufacturing, and load following wind and solar ( weather dependent technologies). So, climate change fast, climate change slow, or climate change no - we all agree we’re going to need massive amounts of new sources of clean energy fairly fast. Nuclear is fast gaining the public’s support as a solution. The physics of power production demonstrate it is a viable option to produce clean energy now at scale. Let’s get on the same bus for the next leg of the journey.
For sure, we can agree on nuclear, and fusion down the road. I'm with you there.
Now if I can get your agreement that natural gas has to fill the gap until we get there I think we can approach The Hill with a bi-partisan proposal. Natural gas is the next densest fuel option after coal and oil, will emit half the CO2 of coal (without particulate pollution), and keep the surface footprint tiny. We can then transfer those plants to Small Modular Reactors in the future, and the owners will do it because they will be cheaper to operate using fission. Fusion is making great strides fast. But we have to keep ignition going longer, and gain a much better understanding of what happens to the spent neutrons inside the casing, as just two of many areas that will require answers. Fission is here now, and offers many of the benefits fusion will offer. Solar on roofs only ( cut subsidies to equal nuclear subsidies)wind by the wayside ( the biggest debacle of the 21st century). That’s a formula that passes a physics test and could gain broad public support if explained well. Want to join forces?