Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Originally Posted by aging one

Looking forward to your next 40+ degree days coming up? How many did you have a year when you were say 8-15 years old?

As I live 118 miles to the south of British Columbia's capital city, Vancouver, I can answer that.

The answer is never, and especially not in June, when it was typically overcast and rainy. It was a running joke amongst the local weathermen as to whether the sun would even come out at all for the 4th of July.

That said, 90f/32c days were also a rarity, even in August. No longer the case.

Originally Posted by bsnub

As I live 118 miles to the south of British Columbia's capital city, Vancouver, I can answer that.

Oh well, I guess geography has never really been Americans strongest suit. Do you think Toronto is the capital of Canada too?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

If I didn't know better I'd say repeater is in favour of phasing out fossil fuels for renewables.

If true, that's real progress.

Of course I am,always have been but in an orderly process that makes sense and just turning off the oil spigot makes no sens.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

just turning off the oil spigot makes no sens.

It might make more sense than you do, especially if it were true. No one is recommending that. Just oil companies spending big money trying to secure the best alternative to fossil fuels, while they still have the time, and the money.
Try googling the R&D budgets for BP, Shell and others.

But Khun Peter never lets reality get in the way of a right wing moan.

'Orderly process'

Equal parts and

Originally Posted by pickel

Oh well, I guess geography has never really been Americans strongest suit. Do you think Toronto is the capital of Canada too?

In my defense, I was on the icy pops when I posted that. I truly did know that it was Victoria.

Originally Posted by Switch

It might make more sense than you do, especially if it were true. No one is recommending that. Just oil companies spending big money trying to secure the best alternative to fossil fuels, while they still have the time, and the money.
Try googling the R&D budgets for BP, Shell and others.

My post was directed at Harry who has more than said the fix to climate change was to shut down fossil fuels.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

My post was directed at Harry who has more than said the fix to climate change was to shut down fossil fuels.

Are you suggesting that I am not allowed to comment on obvious inaccuracies?

Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai

I guess when the US under the trump administration pulled out of The Paris Agreement for four long years did so under pressure from the "climate change regime " , right?

And it was reversed just like that.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

My post was directed at Harry who has more than said the fix to climate change was to shut down fossil fuels.

God you're thick. They have been fobbing the world off for years by convincing gullible old fools like you that they aren't the problem.

The climate crisis of the 21st century has been caused largely by just 90 companies, which between them produced nearly two-thirds of the greenhouse gas emissions generated since the dawning of the industrial age, new research suggests.

The companies range from investor-owned firms – household names such as Chevron, Exxon and BP – to state-owned and government-run firms.

The analysis, which was welcomed by the former vice-president Al Gore as a "crucial step forward" found that the vast majority of the firms were in the business of producing oil, gas or coal, found the analysis, which has been published in the journal Climatic Change.

"There are thousands of oil, gas and coal producers in the world," climate researcher and author Richard Heede at the Climate Accountability
Institute in Colorado said. "But the decision makers, the CEOs, or the ministers of coal and oil if you narrow it down to just one person, they could all fit on a Greyhound bus or two."

Half of the estimated emissions were produced just in the past 25 years – well past the date when governments and corporations became aware that rising greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of coal and oil were causing dangerous climate change.

Just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions | Greenhouse gas emissions | The Guardian

Originally Posted by Switch

Are you suggesting that I am not allowed to comment on obvious inaccuracies?

You can comment on anything you want I could care less what you do. I was only pointing out that the intent of my post was quite accurate as it was directed at Harry who has on more than one occasion that turning off the fossil fuel spigot is the answer to climate change.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

God you're thick. They have been fobbing the world off for years by convincing gullible old fools like you that they

Just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions | Greenhouse gas emissions | The Guardian

Seems you are the thick one is you where in my post do you read that I denied fossil fuels are not a leading factor in carbon pollution.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You can comment on anything you want I could care less what you do. I was only pointing out that the intent of my post was quite accurate as it was directed at Harry who has on more than one occasion that turning off the fossil fuel spigot is the answer to climate change.

Because the fossil fuel industries conned the public we are 25 years late addressing the problem, massive damage has been done and the urgency to switch away from burning fuels to the atmosphere is critical.

Even if they stopped it all immediately, there are barriers that have been broken that will cause problems in the future.

But you don't care repeater, you'll be pushing up the daisies when your coffin is underwater.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Because the fossil fuel industries conned the public we are 25 years late addressing the problem, massive damage has been done and the urgency to switch away from burning fuels to the atmosphere is critical.

Even if they stopped it all immediately, there are barriers that have been broken that will cause problems in the future.

But you don't care repeater, you'll be pushing up the daisies when your coffin is underwater.

Where do you come up with the idea that I don’t care? I have posted several articles on coming tech. to reverse climate change I just don’t think waking up one day and shutting off fossil fuels will work. A smooth transfer has the only chance of working.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Where do you come up with the idea that I don’t care? I have posted several articles on coming tech. to reverse climate change I just don’t think waking up one day and shutting off fossil fuels will work. A smooth transfer has the only chance of working.

There is no time for a "smooth transition" which for the fossil fuel companies would be another 25 years or more if they had their way.

For a start, stop subsidising them and spend the money on health care instead.

Conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year; with 20 percent currently allocated to coal and 80 percent to natural gas and crude oil. European Union subsidies are estimated to total 55 billion euros annually.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

There is no time for a "smooth transition" which for the fossil fuel companies would be another 25 years or more if they had their way.

For a start, stop subsidising them and spend the money on health care instead.

Why would you advocate spending the money on healthcare when the major problem here is global warming it seems spending the money on development of carbon capture technologies might be a better choice.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Why would you advocate spending the money on healthcare when the major problem here is global warming it seems spending the money on development of carbon capture technologies might be a better choice.

I said spend *that* money on healthcare, because you should do.

You can tax the fuck out of them to both compress demand for fossil fuels and accelerate the move to renewables. If they spend money on renewables, you can give them tax breaks.

But subsidies should be gone.

Why waste money on carbon capture. That will merely attempt to mitigate the problem. CO2 is only one by product of burning coal there are many pollutants that are also released from burning coal. It would seem more logical to spend money removing the problem rather trying to mitigate it. It would also seem illogical to burn more coal to supply the energy to make carbon capture storage equipment.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

Why waste money on carbon capture. That will merely attempt to mitigate the problem. CO2 is only one by product of burning coal there are many pollutants that are also released from burning coal. It would seem more logical to spend money removing the problem rather trying to mitigate it. It would also seem illogical to burn more coal to supply the energy to make carbon capture storage equipment.

I have read articles lately that say simply eliminating fossil fuels alone will not achieve the intended goal of slowing climate change some carbon will need to be removed from the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

Why waste money on carbon capture. That will merely attempt to mitigate the problem. CO2 is only one by product of burning coal there are many pollutants that are also released from burning coal. It would seem more logical to spend money removing the problem rather trying to mitigate it. It would also seem illogical to burn more coal to supply the energy to make carbon capture storage equipment.

If the fossil fuel industry is involved, I would suggest:

1. There is money to be made out of it.
2. They can use it as an excuse to continue their destructive ways.

More good news

Form Energy's New Low-Cost, Iron-Air Battery Runs for 100 Hours

Originally Posted by RPETER65

More good news

Form Energy's New Low-Cost, Iron-Air Battery Runs for 100 Hours

You'll be dead before it hits the market. If it ever does.

^^Watch and wait

This week, the company said its first commercial product is a “rechargeable iron-air battery capable of delivering electricity for 100 hours at system costs competitive with conventional power plants and at less than 1/10th the cost of lithium-ion.

Wiley says a 300 MW pilot project for Minnesota-based Great River Energy will be commissioned in 2023.

Form Energy Reveals Iron-Air 100 Hour Storage Battery | CleanTechnica