The Inconvenient Truth About Green Energy

[Reality 2,711]

Good thread, very informative.

 

[jerryskids 5,408]

Very interesting, thanks for posting.  Chile eh, whodathunk?  

[Reality 2,711]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/faith-freedom-self-reliance/the-real-world-consequences-of-green-extremism

[Hardcore troubadour 12,945]

And when this green energy hoax blows over some people will have gotten very rich. Then rinse and repeat. 

[Voltaire 4,587]

As promised, OP was a good read.

[Vikings4ever 496]

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-07-14/california-rooftop-solar-pv-panels-recycling-danger

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,722]

On 7/3/2022 at 11:27 AM, jerryskids said:

Very interesting, thanks for posting.  Chile eh, whodathunk?  

If anyone knows how batteries are made - specifically EV batteries - you knew damn well that green energy was a lie.   The rare minerals and energy you need to make those batteries alone are off the charts and then DISPOSING of them is also another environmental nightmare.

All the green energy crowd did was move the pollution from the end of the production line to the beginning of it.

[craftsman 1,045]

On 7/3/2022 at 2:39 PM, Reality said:

Good thread, very informative.

 

The only part of this I take issue with is the "solving it" part.

There is no "solving" climate change. Climate change is what the Earth does. Since its beginning, up until it gets either burned up and/or swallowed by the Earth's sun.

 

[Cdub100 3,453]

We only have 10 8 years left

[easilyscan 572]

The Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) 

Since the ITC was enacted in 2006, the U.S. solar industry has grown by more than 10,000% 

Why does an industry that's shown such incredible growth, still need to be subsidized ?

 

 

 

 

[edjr 5,719]

The planet has a fever

[Thornton Melon 549]

7 hours ago, edjr said:

The planet has a fever

So all it needs is more cowbell?

[DonS 3,096]

3 minutes ago, Thornton Melon said:

So all it needs is more cowbell?

Pretty soon we'll all be wearing gold plated diapers.

 

[edjr 5,719]

 

8 years left. Lets live it up!

[craftsman 1,045]

Here's your climate change.

AP NEWS

Man detained in police probe of raging wildfires in France

LA TESTE-DE-BUCH, France (AP) — French investigators probing the suspected deliberate lighting of what has become a raging wildfire in the country’s southwest detained a man for questioning, as firefighters and water-bombing planes on Tuesday fought the ferocious flames fueled by a heat wave smashing temperature records in Europe.

Two huge fires feeding on tinder-dry pine forests in the Gironde region have forced tens of thousands of people to flee homes and summer vacation spots since they broke out July 12.

One of the blazes, tearing through woodlands south of Bordeaux, is suspected to have been started deliberately. A motorist told investigators that he saw a vehicle speeding away from the spot where that fire started on July 12. The motorist pulled over and tried unsuccessfully to extinguish the flames, the Bordeaux prosecutor’s office said. Criminal investigators found evidence pointing to possible arson, it said.

The 39-year-old man being questioned Tuesday lives in Gironde and was detained on Monday afternoon, the prosecutor’s office said. He previously also was questioned in 2012 on suspicion of starting a forest fire but that investigation was shelved in 2014 for lack of evidence, the prosecutor’s office added.

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,945]

That’s terrorism. 

[lod001 1,245]

On 7/17/2022 at 1:28 PM, craftsman said:

The only part of this I take issue with is the "solving it" part.

There is no "solving" climate change. Climate change is what the Earth does. Since its beginning, up until it gets either burned up and/or swallowed by the Earth's sun.

 

Only idiots think man can change the climate.

[Sean Mooney 1,214]

Typical....Climate change- I refuse to believe scientists but this guy on Twitter has a lot of great ideas. 

[craftsman 1,045]

4 hours ago, lod001 said:

Only idiots think man can change the climate.

Man's ego is out of control on this one. It's hard to believe that many people don't look to the past to help learn our future.

[listen2me 23 1,576]

5 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

Typical....Climate change- I refuse to believe scientists but this guy on Twitter has a lot of great ideas. 

What do the scientists say?

[Sean Mooney 1,214]

12 minutes ago, listen2me 23 said:

What do the scientists say?

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html

 

 

 

[craftsman 1,045]

21 minutes ago, listen2me 23 said:

What do the scientists say?

Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues

In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canada’s, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy. One of the most powerful rhetorical weapons being deployed is the claim that 97 per cent of the world’s scientists agree what the problem is and what we have to do about it. In the face of such near-unanimity, it would be understandable if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Canadian government were simply to capitulate and throw Canada’s economy under the climate change bandwagon. But it would be a tragedy because the 97 per cent claim is a fabrication.

Like so much else in the climate change debate, one needs to check the numbers. First of all, on what exactly are 97 per cent of experts supposed to agree? In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.” As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making it up. At a recent debate in New Orleans, I heard climate activist Bill McKibben claim there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are “a grave danger.” But when challenged for the source of his claim, he promptly withdrew it.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50 per cent) of the post-1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. But it does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, so we do not know how many experts agree with it. And the statement, even if true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy. In fact, it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs.

One commonly cited survey asked if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activities contribute to climate change. But these are trivial statements that even many IPCC skeptics agree with. And again, both statements are consistent with the view that climate change is harmless. So there are no policy implications of such surveys, regardless of the level of agreement.

The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.

Two recent surveys shed more light on what atmospheric scientists actually think. Bear in mind that on a topic as complex as climate change, a survey is hardly a reliable guide to scientific truth, but if you want to know how many people agree with your view, a survey is the only way to find out.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.

So no sign of a 97% consensus. Not only do about half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue.

The Netherlands Environmental Agency recently published a survey of international climate experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, and 1868 responses were received, a similar sample and response rate to the AMS survey. In this case the questions referred only to the post-1950 period. 66% agreed with the IPCC that global warming has happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either don’t know or think human influence was not dominant. So again, no 97% consensus behind the IPCC.

But the Dutch survey is even more interesting because of the questions it raises about the level of knowledge of the respondents. Although all were described as “climate experts,” a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature.

Regarding the recent slowdown in warming, here is what the IPCC said: “The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years.” Yet 46 per cent of the Dutch survey respondents - nearly half - believe the warming trend has stayed the same or increased. And only 25 per cent agreed that global warming has been less than projected over the past 15 to 20 years, even though the IPCC reported that 111 out of 114 model projections overestimated warming since 1998.

Three quarters of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted.” Here is what the IPCC said in its 2003 report: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Looking into further detail there are other interesting ways in which the socalled experts are unaware of unresolved discrepancies between models and observations regarding issues like warming in the tropical troposphere and overall climate sensitivity.

What can we take away from all this? First, lots of people get called “climate experts” and contribute to the appearance of consensus, without necessarily being knowledgeable about core issues. A consensus among the misinformed is not worth much.

Second, it is obvious that the “97%” mantra is untrue. The underlying issues are so complex it is ludicrous to expect unanimity. The near 50/50 split among AMS members on the role of greenhouse gases is a much more accurate picture of the situation. The phoney claim of 97% consensus is mere political rhetoric aimed at stifling debate and intimidating people into silence.

The Canadian government has the unenviable task of defending the interest of the energy producers and consumers of a cold, thinly-populated country, in the face of furious, deafening global warming alarmism. Some of the worst of it is now emanating from the highest places. Barack Obama’s website (barackobama.com) says “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made … Find the deniers near you - and call them out today.” How nice. But what we really need to call out is the use of false propaganda and demagogy to derail factual debate and careful consideration of all facets of the most complex scientific and policy issue of our time.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

 

[Sean Mooney 1,214]

So the premise of that article is that scientists are idiots?

[lod001 1,245]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html

 

 

 

Right back at ya. Beleive what you want but you're as wrong on this as tim was on the jab juice.

https://www.sott.net/article/420049-NASA-admits-climate-change-occurs-because-of-changes-in-Earths-solar-orbit-not-because-of-SUVs-and-fossil-fuels

[Sean Mooney 1,214]

16 minutes ago, lod001 said:

Right back at ya. Beleive what you want but you're as wrong on this as tim was on the jab juice.

https://www.sott.net/article/420049-NASA-admits-climate-change-occurs-because-of-changes-in-Earths-solar-orbit-not-because-of-SUVs-and-fossil-fuels

Oh damn. Thanks for that laugh.

Yes NASA in 1958 decided something and have not observed changes in the last 64 years. The author even says "It has nothing to do with SUVs" even though one wouldn't have known that in 1958 because SUVs didn't exist until the 80's. So it can not be definitively said SUVs have no effect from something NASA said in 1958.

As to Milankovitch Climate Theory:

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/

With the most pertinent point this one:

Quote

Milankovitch cycles operate on long time scales, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. In contrast, Earth’s current warming has taken place over time scales of decades to centuries. Over the last 150 years, Milankovitch cycles have not changed the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth very much. In fact, NASA satellite observations show that over the last 40 years, solar radiation has actually decreased somewhat.

 

[lod001 1,245]

23 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

Oh damn. Thanks for that laugh.

Yes NASA in 1958 decided something and have not observed changes in the last 64 years. The author even says "It has nothing to do with SUVs" even though one wouldn't have known that in 1958 because SUVs didn't exist until the 80's. So it can not be definitively said SUVs have no effect from something NASA said in 1958.

As to Milankovitch Climate Theory:

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/

With the most pertinent point this one:

 

Your level of ignorance and inability to comprehend is off the charts. Your  so stupid you think that a comment about SUVs was referring to 1958. Hes simply stating the fact that climate change is not being affected by vehicles.

You know what also cant be proven? That climate change is due to fossil fuels. Ya got a link from the NYT

 

[Baker Boy 1,501]

What we are finding out now is that emissions from automobiles, etc. actually help block the heat of the sun and help keep the planet cooler. 2020 was our warmest year on record, (with no El Niño events), the year of the lockdown. I think we are seeing a continuation of that today.

[craftsman 1,045]

On 7/20/2022 at 12:00 AM, Sean Mooney said:

So the premise of that article is that scientists are idiots?

Comprehension is hard, huh?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,945]

On 7/19/2022 at 8:00 PM, Sean Mooney said:

So the premise of that article is that scientists are idiots?

 Beta Cuck 

[Baker Boy 1,501]

On 7/19/2022 at 10:19 AM, Sean Mooney said:

Typical....Climate change- I refuse to believe scientists but this guy on Twitter has a lot of great ideas. 

Scientists run on outside funding, they have found a Cash Cow in global warming.

[shorepatrol 1,741]

On 7/19/2022 at 3:12 PM, craftsman said:

Man's ego is out of control on this one. It's hard to believe that many people don't look to the past to help learn our future.

The past is raciss 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,945]

11 minutes ago, shorepatrol said:

The past is raciss 

 

And full of success as well. Tear it down, white men did that. 

[Voltaire 4,587]

It looks to me like the green energy movement tried to transition away from fossil fuels too quickly, before the grid was ready. This has triggered shortages, massive price spikes, and a political backlash. At the same time, during a food shortage and food inflation, they are targeting European farmers. It all seems quite tone deaf. 

The World Economic Forum government and industry elites needed to come up with energy, climate, and food policies that cover both the here-and-now as well as the future and indications are they didn't manage that properly. Triggering crisises now to avert crisises in the future isn't going to go over well short term. When the solution requires convincing everyday people to give up air conditioning and to eat the bugs, they may not be receptive to that idea. Then raising the prices for fuel and beef to get them to comply just makes them angry. 

[Sean Mooney 1,214]

11 hours ago, lod001 said:

Your level of ignorance and inability to comprehend is off the charts. Your  so stupid you think that a comment about SUVs was referring to 1958. Hes simply stating the fact that climate change is not being affected by vehicles.

You know what also cant be proven? That climate change is due to fossil fuels. Ya got a link from the NYT

 

I suggest you reread the sentence I wrote. Also, I knew you would focus on the one link which is why I put it. 

10 hours ago, Baker Boy said:

What we are finding out now is that emissions from automobiles, etc. actually help block the heat of the sun and help keep the planet cooler. 2020 was our warmest year on record, (with no El Niño events), the year of the lockdown. I think we are seeing a continuation of that today.

Do you have a link to this being something they've found?

[Big Guy 1,400]

On 7/17/2022 at 10:35 AM, Cdub100 said:

We only have 10 8 years left

Agenda 21 / 30

[Baker Boy 1,501]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

Do you have a link to this being something they've found?

Quote

The COVID-19 pandemic changed emissions of gases and particulates. These gases and particulates affect climate. In general, human emissions of particles cool the planet by scattering away sunlight in the clear sky and by making clouds brighter to reflect sunlight away from the earth. This paper focuses on understanding how changes to emissions of particulates (aerosols) affect climate.

https://fox8.com/news/earth-heats-up-due-to-pandemics-cleaner-air-study-finds/
 

Quote

Cleaning up the air can actually warm the planet because that (soot and sulfate) pollution results in cooling” which climate scientists have long known, said study lead author Andrew Gettelman, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. His calculations come from comparing 2020 weather to computer models that simulated a 2020 without the pollution reductions from pandemic lockdowns.

https://nypost.com/2021/02/03/study-pandemics-cleaner-air-added-heat-to-warming-planet/

[Sean Mooney 1,214]

#1 those are the same articles.

#2- the science in the study seems a little sketchy in how they conducted everything. 

[lod001 1,245]

This one tweet shows their agenda. Pathetic.

 

[wiffleball 4,679]

And don't even get me started on the inconvenient Truth about Green Acres...

 

It's like Jaja Gabor was doing a parody of melanoma trump. Except she didn't talk like she just felated count chocula.

[lod001 1,245]

Grt ready for this. As the jab juice falls apart, they are moving to climate change. Once the juice is overwhelmingly shown to be a disaster, the left will come back and say its all trumps fault for warp speed (if he is the R nominee in 2024).