LightDreams wrote:
"(The Guardian)  ‘Gobsmackingly bananas’: scientists stunned by planet’s record September heat"

"The carbon emissions driving the climate crisis and rapid arrival of an El Niño event are to blame, researchers say"


Excerpts:

"The hottest September on record follows the hottest August and hottest July, with the latter being the hottest month ever recorded. The high temperatures have driven heatwaves and wildfires across the world."

“September was, in my professional opinion as a climate scientist, absolutely gobsmackingly bananas,” said Zeke Hausfather, at the Berkeley Earth climate data project."

“I’m still struggling to comprehend how a single year can jump so much compared to previous years.” Prof Ed Hawkins, at the University of Reading, UK, said the heat seen this summer was “extraordinary”.

"In Australia, climate scientist and author Joelle Gergis said: “Observations of Australia’s climate in September are shocking. Figures show where maximum temperatures were the highest on record, with many areas 3C to 5C above average. Rainfall deficits are primed for drought. Summer (upcoming in the southern hemisphere) is going to be brutal.”

"While human-caused global heating and El Niño are the biggest factors causing the record-breaking temperatures, other factors may be contributing small increases as well..."


https://www.theguardian.com/environment … ember-heat

The frogs are getting nervous.

LightDreams wrote:
"(The Guardian)  ‘Gobsmackingly bananas’: scientists stunned by planet’s record September heat"



Hahaha.  Wait until next year, and the following year, and the following year  ..........

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Don't worry about climate change sll but one of the Republican presidential hopefuls say. 

Blame Biden on how he handled the Maui fires said the guy that voted against disaster funding for millions of people harmed in a storm. 

It is up to India and China to do more. 

It is a hoax. 

Sea rise is minsicle. 

"The reality is that the anti-carbon agenda is the wet blanket on our economy," said Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech millionaire and the youngest candidate in the field. "More people are dying of bad climate change policies than they are of actual climate change."  Not that he bothered to mention one of those policies killing people now.  It is a pants on fire lie- see here
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … laim-abou/

By the time the stupid people realize they have been burned, we will already be toast.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66603577

"Boiled frogs on toast."

That will be the report sent to the  Intergalactic Council with the advice to call off the invasion, bring the observers home; "They are doing it to themselves. No longer a danger to us."

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
Great, the planet's getting warmer.
What are your solutions?
[...]

Stop worrying about it.
If it burns, it burns; so what?
There's nothing you can do about it.

The Republicans did everything in their power for DECADES to deny global warming was a problem.  Otherwise, they'd actually have to try and DO something about it.

So now the excuse is "well, it's too late anyway, so why bother doing anything at all...".   REALLY???  That's truly remarkable thinking!

We can still affect how FAST (i.e.  how BADLY) the drastic changes impact us within our lifetimes, and our children's lifetimes.

But, of course, if you don't give a damn well then there's nothing I can say.  Who needs insurance against major climate disasters, or doesn't mind not being able to get enough water, or dealing with far worse food shortages / price inflation, or dealing with the mass population migrations to the areas that have less of a problem with climate disasters, rising sea levels, the heat, forest fires, water availability, etc.

The more time we can buy by trying to reduce the speed of the process, the better our odds are.

And yes, most people have figured out the MASSIVELY INCREASED ECONOMIC COSTS that result from all of these climate disasters (flooding, far more / far worse hurricanes, far more forest fires, fooding and water shortages, etc).  While others, however, still haven't clued in and don't think we should spend anything to try and slow down the process.

You know, REDUCE HOW BAD the climate disasters get AND HOW FAST it happens...

Instead of JUST LAYING DOWN AND DYING.

 

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
... these are patently NOT "renewable" energy sources.

Not sure you understand the meaning of "renewable"

"Renewable energy is energy from renewable resources that are naturally replenished on a human timescale."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy

Regardless of definition, you know what is NOT renewable? Petroleum deposits.  So your "solution",

"Stop worrying about it.
If it burns, it burns; so what?
There's nothing you can do about it"

Is not just defeatist on an existential scale, but inherently anti-human. What is YOUR home planet, anyway?

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
Artificially tank the global economy by forcing your false sense of empowerment onto the world?

Huh?  What do you mean?

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
Wind and Solar absolutely cannot produce enough power to supply our energy needs.

Where do you get your information?  Citation please.

There are already countries with heavy industries running more than 75% from renewable energy.  Here is a chart showing countries with most of their energy coming from renewables.  This chart gives figures from 2016, and renewable energy has grown since then.

Most other countries (especially the larger ones) should have no trouble following suit.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
Further, these are patently NOT "renewable" energy sources.
A windmill can't generate enough energy to produce another windmill.

The largely accepted definition of "renewable" refers to the nature of how the energy is generated and sustained.  "Renewable" doesn't mean that a generator produces enough energy to replicate itself, as that fact is taken for granted.

Regardless, the most powerful wind turbines currently generate about 18 megawatts each.  Certainly, one of those should provide enough power to make at least one identical turbine every few days.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
A solar panel can't generate enough energy to produce another solar panel.
Even if they could, we need MORE than that so we can have some to use.

The worlds largest solar farms output over 2 gigawatts.  That should be enough to crank out one or two solar panels every few minutes, with plenty of extra juice to run Fox News and Newsmax 24 hours a day.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
The EV market is suspect, since they're all still charged via oil, coal, and NG combustion.

The EV market is *suspect*?  Yeah, it's a huge conspiracy by the deep state and "big renewables" to force woke energy onto the patriots!  /s


Actually, the power on the electric grid comes from both renewable and non-renewable sources.  The percentage of renewable energy on the grid is steadily increasing, because renewable energy is less expensive and more sustainable (and, of course, with a lower impact on the environment).

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
You'll spend at least $40k for a new one, which is a lot of money for a battery;
but you'll get next to nothing on a trade-in, because who wants to buy a used battery?

No doubt EVs and cars in general are artificially marked-up and way overpriced.  The costs to make batteries are significantly less than what car makers charge.  The higher price of EV's is not inherent in the technology.

Additionally, money is definitely saved in fuel costs with an EV, and there are promising battery technologies emerging, that could be a lot cheaper.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
So, do we embrace a "Green New Deal," destroy our economy,

Exactly how is the increasing use of renewable energy "destroying our economy?"

Has renewable energy destroyed the economies of those countries who currently enjoy a more than 75% production/consumption of renewables?  If so, please explain how their economies have been destroyed.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
... and halt all technological progress

Renewable energy is most certainly accelerating technological progress.  A lot of our most significant electric advancements originate in renewable and battery-powered fields.

Please explain exactly how the steadily increasing generation and use of renewable energy would "halt all technological progress."

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
... while sending billions of people into oppressive poverty and starvation? Or is that a means toward massive depopulation? An artificially imposed "Survival of the Fittest," created by a handful of wealthy global elitists who won't suffer?

It seems that one of us has extreme partisan notions that distort the actual facts and statistics around renewable energy.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
Stop worrying about it.
If it burns, it burns; so what?
There's nothing you can do about it.

Oh, at this point, it's definitely going to "burn."

However, we can still mitigate some of the "burning" by reducing emissions and consumption.

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
I doubt that any scientists were really surprised as scientist understand averages and the difference between weather and climate.
According to my Electric and Gas company this September was 3 degrees warmer than last year and about the same as Aug. The daily weather reports usually show a 2 degree difference within the state. So if next year it is 3 degrees cooler has the crisis been averted?

I think just about everyone else understands the difference between the overall AVERAGE temperature, FOR THE ENTIRE PLANET, versus your reading of the local "Electric and Gas company".

Take a guess as to which one really COUNTS when it comes to global climate change and its general worldwide impact when it comes to much wilder and much more frequent extreme weather events.

I understand that you haven't noticed the basic worldwide changes in the frequency and severity of all of those wild climate events.  I.E. The wild weather changes compared to what people used to see decades ago, crazy variations such as much colder or much milder winters, far more forest fires, temperature records, far more flooding events and much more frequent or dangerous strong storms and hurricanes, etc.

Fair enough.  You fundamentally disagree with the world's scientific consensus, along with FEMA and other disaster relief agencies, not too mention all of the insurance companies, etc.  But, of course, you are more than welcome to disagree with all of them, and completely deny what most people are experiencing for themselves, to various degrees.

Not that "Denial" has ever changed or stopped what is happening in any form whatsoever.  Although, I have to admit, it sure would be nice if that approach actually DID work!

---

P.S. For the benefit of everyone else.   Aug 2022 was the all-time hottest month on record for Bob's home state of New Jersey.  And it wasn't even close to anything previous.  Although 8 of the all-time previous hottest summers in New Jersey have ALL occurred since 2001.  The trendline is remarkably strong where Bob lives...

Yes, Bob's comparison claims were versus last years "all-time record" New Jersey summer heatwave.


(source:  Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey / Rutgers New Jersey Weather Network)

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
I doubt that any scientists were really surprised as scientist understand averages and the difference between weather and climate.
According to my Electric and Gas company this September was 3 degrees warmer than last year and about the same as Aug. The daily weather reports usually show a 2 degree difference within the state. So if next year it is 3 degrees cooler has the crisis been averted?

So if the average stays the same as this year or goes up again next year would you admit you were wrong and your skepticism was unwarranted?

LightDreams wrote:
I think just about everyone else understands the difference between the overall AVERAGE temperature, FOR THE ENTIRE PLANET, versus your reading of the local "Electric and Gas company".

On February 26, 2015, Senator James Inhof of the great state of Oklahoma brought a snowball into the Senate chamber to prove climate change is a hoax. Turns out 2015 was the hottest year ever recorded globally. The next year was even hotter, another record.

I cannot believe anyone is still making this idiotic argument.

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
I doubt that any scientists were really surprised as scientist understand averages and the difference between weather and climate.
According to my Electric and Gas company this September was 3 degrees warmer than last year and about the same as Aug. The daily weather reports usually show a 2 degree difference within the state. So if next year it is 3 degrees cooler has the crisis been averted?

There's no "crisis."
Certainly not one to any degree (pardon the pun) that anyone can have a meaningful affectation of changing.
Funny to watch people jump to  crazy conclusions about their misinterpretations of my words. When I say there's nothing they can do about it, they jump right to blaming a political party that it's "too late!" OMG!!

There's nothing "too late" about any of it. Short of a mass extermination of people, there's literally nothing anyone can do about it; although Bill Gates is trying with his massive depopulation efforts. I'm convinced population reduction is what the sudden widespread promotion of so-called transgenderism is about. Transgenders have been around for decades, if not centuries. Why is it suddenly a huge deal, now? Why is gender confusion being encouraged among our youth?

When I say Wind & Solar are not "renwable," they jump to the odd conclusion that I think wind will stop and the Sun will go out. lol. They're non-renewable because windmills & solar panels don't generate enough energy to create another windmill or solar panel with enough surplus energy, if any, that we can use. I'm sure they'd prefer I use the word, "unsustainable," but it's all the same thing. I never liked playing the word games of people who invent nonsense words and change the meanings of long-established words (hence, the reason old hardcopy dictionaries are in such high demand. I'm not sure if people are trying to preserve the original meanings of words, or if the digital dictionaries want to buy them all up and destroy them so they can't be challenged). When you change the definitions of words, it kind of undermines the meaning of the word, "definite," doesn't it?

They argue that "green energy" is driving technology, but ignoring that technology will come to a complete halt when the bottom falls out of our economy. They act as if the economy is nothing more than "money," and refuse to acknowledge that an economy is how we all.survive. When the economy is not healthy, we start to die. That's why we can't devote our every last dollar to some pipedream GND that absolutely will not have any reasonble, measurable effect, a hundred years from now.

No one here is gonna stop using their computers, no one is gonna turn off their AC in the summer or their heat in the winter, no one will stop driving their cars to Walmart or to work or to get to a shoot. We can do this if everyone else sacrifices, right? lol!

My main point is, whatever CAN be done about IS being done about it, by way of the Free Market Economy. If enough people want it badly enough, and if it's viable, it will happen... organically; NOT by deliberately effing our economy through some governmental law trying force a technology onto us before its time.

Stop worrying about it.
People a lot smarter than anyone on this website are working their tails off to figure it out.
Why? Because there are boatloads of money waiting at the end of that rainbow when they do.
That is, unless we stifle their incentive with our grade school fantasies of Robin Hood.

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
I doubt that any scientists were really surprised as scientist understand averages and the difference between weather and climate.
According to my Electric and Gas company this September was 3 degrees warmer than last year and about the same as Aug. The daily weather reports usually show a 2 degree difference within the state. So if next year it is 3 degrees cooler has the crisis been averted?

-
The thing about people is that we get to pick and chose our information and make decisions to ignore facts or embrace them according to factors outside of what we need to do to survive.  Our immediate survival or ability to inhabit any particular piece of ground is not impacted by what we consider minor temperature changes, but what about the species that are impacted?

Any farmer or gardener knows about maps for planting zones, telling us when various areas in the United States are safe for planting certain crops or if certain plants will survive there.  You cannot plant in northern states the same time you plant in more southern areas and achieve the best yields.  Research has already shown that the optimum planting dates have gotten earlier due to climate change.

Like planting zones, various species are limited to their habitat by climate, not weather.  Plants and animals that are limited in their range by climate considerations are moving up in both elevation and latitude and it has been measurable phenomena for decades. 

Glaciers are retreating across the world and it is measurable and observable.

You cannot compare weather from year to year unless you have exactly the same weather patterns each day of the year.  Weather is not climate.  That there are people that will ignore readily available evidence of a world wide trend because of a tiny piece of data specific to their locale, while ignoring indisputable facts worldwide, do not make credible commentators.

Our fossil fuel consumption is 8 fold what it was in 1950.  Have ya'll noticed that in discussions with climate change deniers, they never mention what they think the impact is of burning billions of tons of fossil fuels on the atmosphere and the earth?  They simply think there is no impact?  I suggest those that do not believe there is no impact attach a pipe to their running automobile and let the their house fill up with exhaust for a few hours and then tell us how there is no impact.

It is estimated that there is less than 50 years worth of oil left in the ground. By all means, let's burn it all without finding any alternatives.  Let's take all the carbon that was captured in the crust of the earth until the last hundred years and release it again.  Climate deniers probably do not even know that with the evolution of life forms that turn fallen trees and plants into topsoil didn't exist in the eons that the earth buried carbon and produced coal and oil.  New coal and oil deposits are not forming at all, much less as fast as we use them.

Ignorance and greed are king when we are not forced to live in the limits of our environment or die like all of the other species in the world.

Some people are so historically out of touch that they think major innovation in this country and the world has been accomplished simply because of the free market economy- as if our economy is a truly free market.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Some people are so historically out of touch that they think major innovation in this country and the world has been accomplished simply because of the free market economy- as if our economy is a truly free market.

What other Market has ever produced anything?
Meddling with the Free Market is what hinders progress.
I don't mind, too much, Govt Awards for Private Industries that achieve Govt incentivized goals.
I'm 100% AGAINST Govt start-up Grants in so-called "Green" Companies (Solyndra & Fisker come to mind), or really any Company, f9r that matter.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
What other Market has ever produced anything?
Meddling with the Free Market is what hinders progress.
I don't mind, too much, Govt Awards for Private Industries that achieve Govt incentivized goals.
I'm 100% AGAINST Govt start-up Grants in so-called "Green" Companies (Solyndra & Fisker come to mind), or really any Company, f9r that matter.

-
Then I am compelled to ask you what other markets have never produced anything?  What you are saying when you asked, "What other Market <sic> has ever produced anything" is that all other markets have produced nothing.  Other markets produce things, maybe not within the criteria you demand, but your comment reflects a strong bias and the question you posed is not intellectually valid. 

Are you unaware that most of the world's economies have some aspects of the free market, including socialism?  But your perception of what is a free market should override all others, without any explanation or reasons offered?

You think this country was developed per the free market?   Was slavery emblematic of the free market?  Was genocide and the theft of other people's land a function of the free market economy?

You are against incentives for innovation?  Why?  You specify that your are adamantly against incentives for green start ups, because you only want to see your world view perpetuated?  Then you included opposition to all other government grants as an afterthought.   But, of course, that came after your own contradiction of your own view when you said that you don't mind government awards for private companies that achieve government incentivized goals.  How are government awards for incentivized goals a free market?  Isn't that government interfering with the free market?  Why is an incentive (award) after the fact prefered to one that develops and brings new ideas and methods to market?

Your opposition to the program that financed Solandra is because the program was an overall success?  "Solyndra turned out to be an answer to a problem that no longer exists: expensive silicon solar panels. That means Solyndra's bankruptcy is actually good news, like Gronet promised—electricity derived from sunshine is getting cheaper." [1]  And regarding President Barack Obama's economic stimulus program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, "most economists have argued that the stimulus was smaller than needed. Surveys of economists show overwhelming agreement that the stimulus reduced unemployment, and that the benefits of the stimulus outweighed the costs." [2]  So, what is your problem other than a hatred for Obama?  The success of the program dwarfed the losses of the investments that failed. [3]  The Republican alternative would have driven the economy to be the world's worst ever economic carnage.  But that is what the right wants, correct?

"Meddling with the Free Market is what hinders progress."  That is why the government gave the railroads land grants and why the railroads never spread across the country?  That is why the government never deepens and widens shipping channels, didn't build the Panama Canal, and left the interstate highway system on the drawing board?  Because all those things interfere with the free market?  Consistently, this free market you tout fails to outperform markets with substantial backing like the Chinese solar panel producers and competitors with American steel.  Therefore, one must ask what is so good about the American method of greed driving the economy?

You believe that entrenched market holders do not interfere with the free market?  Like buying up patents and scuttling patents that would harm their existing industry?  Or buying up companies that make goods no longer protected by patents, and are in competition with the patent holder?

You think that the market doesn't interfere with government and the rights of the people?  You think tax laws that allow highly profitable companies to be tax free is the free market?

Would you please list the countries in the world that are a pure free market economy?  Are you confusing capitalism with a free market economy?

You are good at making incoherent comments which regurgitate right wing talking points, but an economist, you aren't.

Oh, I am misinterpreting what you are saying?  Is that because you are making unsupported rants instead of articulating rational arguments? 

BTW, when a person doesn't understand when to capitalize and when not to capitalize or can't grasp the simplicities of the English language, is it reasonable to question if they are capable of developing compelling discussion points?  Does poor logic and presentation reinforce the doubt?  If a person has made and repeated false claims that for energy to be renewable it must produce the energy required to replicate the production sources, without explaining what that means in a practical sense, how does that bolster credibility? 

Renewable energy is energy derived from natural sources that are replenished at a higher rate than they are consumed, not dependent on a level of energy production that some random person with an agenda arbitrarily assign as a prerequisite in a false statement.  Nor are renewable sources of energy limited to solar and wind.  Renewable energy is also energy that is made without consuming the source, such as in wind, solar and water currents, including, but not limited to hydro-electric.  Renewable energy also includes situations when the energy source is replenished, such as burning off methane from landfills and manure lagoons on farms.  We had been using wind and water power for generations before the electric grid came along.  But you are saying we cannot improve the technology and use these sources even though real life has proved you wrong?

We didn't start the production of electricity with the same technology we have now.  Why do you think the renewables must meet your asinine requirements now?  Considering that energy production has had technological advancements through out the history of power generation, by your logic, each and every technology was forced upon us before its time.  Didn't the steam engine evolve and improve?  The nuclear power plant?  We should all still be using horses because automotive technology will improve in the coming years rendering what we have now as obsolete and worthless because something better will eventually appear?

Regarding your false claim: How much energy does it take to produce a solar panel at each step of the process and please provide data as to how much energy a state of the art solar panel makes and explain how multiple solar panels cannot achieve the kilowatt level required, when several panels on my roof can power my house, including the oven, dryer and heater, and recharge the battery in a car.  BTW, people do invest in the future with solar and wind.

Your other posts this morning, where you cite various sources, all seem to be without a point.  You list the countries which consume gas, oil and coal by volume?  So what?

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … lar-power/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ … e%20costs.
[3] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/sti … -old-still

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
... Short of a mass extermination of people, there's literally nothing anyone can do about it;

although Bill Gates is trying with his massive depopulation efforts. I'm convinced population reduction is what the sudden widespread promotion of so-called transgenderism is about.
...

These quotes from Matthew Edwards Imagery tell you everything you need to know about his particular sources of information and his belief system.  Such as it is.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
What other Market has ever produced anything?
Meddling with the Free Market is what hinders progress.
I don't mind, too much, Govt Awards for Private Industries that achieve Govt incentivized goals.
I'm 100% AGAINST Govt start-up Grants in so-called "Green" Companies (Solyndra & Fisker come to mind), or really any Company, f9r that matter.

I was wondering where all the Chicago School libertarians had gone, and here they are - in Chicago no less, capitalizing free market like its holy and sacred, and worthy of worship, like a good Friedmanite. Let's dispose of that delusion with a simple question: Where is this "Free Market"?.................Don't bother, there isn't one. Oh, maybe some indigenous people tried it, but we nipped that in the bud, didn't we? "Free Markets" is a convenient buzzword for the Billionaire Class to throw around in their usual ritual defense, but the fact is so called "free markets" are all prone to corruption and become anything but free, unless you mean "free for the Billionaire Class to run rampant."  And the reason? Read on.

When basing an economic system on GREED as a fundamental, revered motivation, you literally unleash one of the darkest demons in the human psyche, and nobody seriously believes that an economy harnessing greed will be corruption-free, rather than corruption-endemic, without some kind of regulation. CORRUPTION "is what hinders progress."

And even if a certain amount of corruption was deemed acceptable, is the unfettered "invisible hand of the market" the best mechanism for determining value in an economy? Clearly not. Price, yes. Value, no. If the market fairly assigned VALUE, teachers and Tucker Carlson would  swap incomes.

And finally, the other basic belief of the libertarian free-marketers is the idea that individuals should be free to market to the public anything they want, with no "meddling" by a government regulator stifling "progress." So if a product, like a drug, indeed is dangerous, the free market solution is that the public would find out and the company would go out of business, no government "meddling" needed. The miracle of the market at work. That has worked out so well. That is what the libertarians want us to believe.

It was self-serving nonsense when Uncle Miltie proposed it, and nonsense now.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
When I say Wind & Solar are not "renwable," they jump to the odd conclusion that I think wind will stop and the Sun will go out. lol. They're non-renewable because windmills & solar panels don't generate enough energy to create another windmill or solar panel with enough surplus energy, if any, that we can use. I'm sure they'd prefer I use the word, "unsustainable," but it's all the same thing.

"When I say Wind & Solar are not "renwable," they jump to the odd conclusion that I think wind will stop and the Sun will go out. lol."

You can "lol" all you want, but "the conclusion" is you do not know the meaning of  "renwable," (sic). Renewable is that which is naturally recurrent, and will reliably and naturally replenish themselves, like solar, wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal and biomass.

"Sustainable," is that which can be maintained for the foreseeable future without compromising or threatening future generations, and that is dependent on technological progress which increases efficiency in extracting energy.

Not all renewable energy is sustainable energy, and vice versa, but one indisputable fact is that coal and petroleum are neither. And what is your brilliant advice?

"the Free Market Economy. If enough people want it badly enough, and if it's viable, it will happen... organically; NOT by deliberately effing our economy through some governmental law trying force a technology onto us before its time."

And what if "enough people" are convinced by the Billionaire Class to NOT want it bad enough, that it is not a problem or a crisis?  Wait until we watch the Billionaire Class take off in their private spaceships for their private, gated communities on some distant planet, leaving the rest of us to deal with the shitscape hell they will have created on Earth?

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
There's no "crisis."  Certainly not one to any degree (pardon the pun) that anyone can have a meaningful affectation of changing.

Just saying that doesn't make it true.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
Funny to watch people jump to  crazy conclusions about their misinterpretations of my words. When I say there's nothing they can do about it, they jump right to blaming a political party that it's "too late!" OMG!!

Well, which group has consistently opposed measures to curtail developmental progress in the energy field?

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
There's nothing "too late" about any of it.

Yes, there is.  At this point, all we can do is try to mitigate what will come.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
Short of a mass extermination of people, there's literally nothing anyone can do about it; although Bill Gates is trying with his massive depopulation efforts. I'm convinced population reduction is what the sudden widespread promotion of so-called transgenderism is about. Transgenders have been around for decades, if not centuries. Why is it suddenly a huge deal, now? Why is gender confusion being encouraged among our youth?

So, climate change mitigation -> mass extermination -> "transgenderism"?  It is usually a good idea in discussions to try and prevent the errant brain waves from escaping.

Not that it matters to the topic of this thread, but in regards to your notions about LGBT, "transgenders" have been around not for just decades/centuries, but likely since prehistory. 

The reason "it suddenly a huge deal now" is because of recent measures to oppress LGBT activities from far right extremists.  Nobody had any problems with LGBT and things were progressing smoothly (but slowly), until certain right wing extremists suddenly came into power.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
When I say Wind & Solar are not "renwable," they jump to the odd conclusion that I think wind will stop and the Sun will go out. lol.

No.  It's more likely that "they" think that you watch too much Fox News and Newsmax, so you are never exposed to actual facts.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
They're non-renewable because windmills & solar panels don't generate enough energy to create another windmill or solar panel with enough surplus energy, if any, that we can use.

I explained above how that notion is false.  Certainly, an 18 megawatt wind turbine produces enough energy in less than a day to make a duplicate of itself.  Additionally, there are plenty of 1 gigawatt to 2 gigawatt solar farms.

Furthermore, there is not a set amount of energy that a wind turbine or a solar panel produces.  The element of time has to be considered.  These energy generators run until they die.

A single 100 watt solar panel produces 292 kilowatt hours per year, assuming it is exposed to the Sun eight hours per day.  So, after ten years that panel at that location has output 2,920 kilowatt hours.  Surely, the amount of energy used to produce that solar panel is a fraction of 2,920 kilowatt hours.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
I'm sure they'd prefer I use the word, "unsustainable," but it's all the same thing. I never liked playing the word games of people who invent nonsense words and change the meanings of long-established words (hence, the reason old hardcopy dictionaries are in such high demand. I'm not sure if people are trying to preserve the original meanings of words, or if the digital dictionaries want to buy them all up and destroy them so they can't be challenged). When you change the definitions of words, it kind of undermines the meaning of the word, "definite," doesn't it?

Your perception of other folks here getting hung up on semantics is likely incorrect.

Sure, some might respond with your terms in quotation marks, but there is no need to get into an argument on word meanings.

That's an interesting scenario with the hard-copy dictionary in high demand.

In regards to word definitions changing/growing, it happens and it is part of the evolution of languages.

However, none of these points have anything to do with the topic of this thread.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
They argue that "green energy" is driving technology,...

It is, as are many other fields.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
but ignoring that technology will come to a complete halt when the bottom falls out of our economy

Well, if the bottom falls out of "our" economy, no doubt that "they" would agree that most technologies "will come to a complete halt."

So, not sure what your point is here.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
They act as if the economy is nothing more than "money," and refuse to acknowledge that an economy is how we all.survive.

No doubt, you are an accredited economist.  I confess that I don't understand most of the subtleties of the economy, but I have seen plenty of times in which the economy experts weren't in consensus.

Certainly, most of us are aware that if the economy tanks, that can make things difficult.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
When the economy is not healthy, we start to die.  That's why we can't devote our every last dollar to some pipedream...

So, money going to renewable energy has the economy on the verge of collapsing to the point that many people will die?

For someone who says, "there's no 'crisis,'" you sure paint a dire picture.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
GND that absolutely will not have any reasonble, measurable effect, a hundred years from now.

So you say, but the actual science says otherwise.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
No one here is gonna stop using their computers,...

Actually, more and more people here seem to be using their cell phones instead of computers.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
no one is gonna turn off their AC in the summer or their heat in the winter,...

Well, there are no doubt plenty like me who keep their air conditioners set to 77F degrees and use space heaters for individual rooms in use (instead of heating the entire house).  Not only does it help the power grid and climate, but it also saves money for those who pay the electric bills.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
no one will stop driving their cars to Walmart or to work or to get to a shoot. We can do this if everyone else sacrifices, right? lol!

Some will, and those who don't stop will eventually be taking their EV's to Walmart.

Where I live, parking is an issue, and I sometimes take buses, trains and ride shares to shoots.  In addition, I never shop at Walmart.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
My main point is, whatever CAN be done about IS being done about it, by way of the Free Market Economy. If enough people want it badly enough, and if it's viable, it will happen... organically;

It is happening and it is viable --   that's why the renewable energy keeps growing.

Folks are buying solar panels for their roofs from Amazon (and probably Walmart) and they are saving on their electric bills.  With batteries, they also have plenty of reserve power when their electric provider has problems.

Renewable energy works and is less expensive then the alternatives.  Plus, it saves limited resources and it can help slow climate change and reduce pollution.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
NOT by deliberately effing our economy through some governmental law trying force a technology onto us before its time.

Stop exaggerating.  The economy is not being "effed" by investment nor subsidies for renewable energy.

The technology is feasible right now and it works -- that's why the renewable energy sector is growing.

By the way, do you also object to subsidies that go to petroleum and coal industries?

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
People a lot smarter than anyone on this website are working their tails off to figure it out.

Exactly...  and all of those smart people have been warning us for years that we have to take measures to avert human induced climate change.  Those smart people are now telling us that we are likely past the point of no return.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
Why? Because there are boatloads of money waiting at the end of that rainbow when they do.
That is, unless we stifle their incentive with our grade school fantasies of Robin Hood.

Certainly, there is plenty of money in renewable energy.  Hence, the growth and innovation from that sector.

Not sure what is meant by "stifle their incentive with our grade school fantasies of Robin Hood," but it likely is an exaggerated mischaracterization.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
Denmark, whose population is about the size of metrpolitan Chicago, leads the world with 55% of its power coming from wind (1922)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country

Denmark gets 7.2% of its power from solar
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country

If we can believe those numbers, that's 62.2%... for a country that ranks 116th in total global energy comsumption:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count … by-country

What is your point here?

Why wouldn't we believe the numbers?

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
Oil Consumption by Country:
https://www.worldometers.info/oil/oil-c … y-country/

Natural Gas Consumption by Country:
https://www.worldometers.info/gas/gas-c … y-country/

Coal Consumption by Country:
https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal … y-country/

What is your point here?

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
What other Market has ever produced anything?

There are many examples, but take, for instance, NASA.  That is a government agency that has developed a lot of things that we use today.  There is no "free market" with a government agency -- all NASA funding comes from taxpayer money.

China and the USSR are/were not free markets.  You can't deny that China has produced a lot, and, at times, the USSR was leading the space race.  By the way, I am in no way suggesting that the West should be like the USSR nor China.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
Meddling with the Free Market is what hinders progress.

Restrictions and incentives sometimes do hinder progress, and that includes subsidies to oil, coal and Internet provider monopolies.

Thoughtfulness in applying such restrictions/incentives is required.  Much of the time they work.  Consider the ban of DDT, for instance.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
I don't mind, too much, Govt Awards for Private Industries that achieve Govt incentivized goals.

Do you think that renewable energy ventures that received subsidies have not achieved their "Govt inecnivized goals?"

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
I'm 100% AGAINST Govt start-up Grants in so-called "Green" Companies (Solyndra & Fisker come to mind), or really any Company, f9r that matter.

I figured out that you are against that without you having to state it.

Matthew Edwards Imagery wrote:
Stop worrying about it.
People a lot smarter than anyone on this website are working their tails off to figure it out.
Why? Because there are boatloads of money waiting at the end of that rainbow when they do.
That is, unless we stifle their incentive with our grade school fantasies of Robin Hood.

Perfect distillation of free market libertarianism. Taxiing the rich and helping the poor is considered ROBBERY.
Because as we all know, an economy based on greed-fueled competitions for survival, the libertarian wet-dream, the losers - and make no mistake, in a competition there MUST be losers - deserve nothing from the winners and should do the honorable thing and just go away and fucking DIE.

Focuspuller wrote:
Because as we all know, an economy based on greed-fueled competitions for survival, the libertarian wet-dream, the losers - and make no mistake,

in a competition there MUST be losers - deserve nothing from the winners and should do the honorable thing and just go away and fucking DIE.

As I read it, that's EXACTLY what Matther Edwards Imagery SAID:

- "There's no "crisis."

- "Short of a mass extermination of people, there's literally nothing anyone can do about it"

- "Stop worrying about it."

Yep.  Apparently, we're supposed to just lay down and die...

And we should absolutely NOT hold anyone accountable for their actions leading up to this.  Hey, it's the "free market" after all(!}.

And if it wipes everyone out, well then they'll no longer be buying those products.  I.E.  His "free market" system still WORKS!!!

JSouthworth wrote:
It's stupid that people are using petrol engined cars to commute to pointless clerical jobs 40 miles away which could easily be done by computers, and which exist only because the employers are given financial incentives to employ more people, resulting in damage to the environment. This needs to end, protecting the environment is more important than preserving obsolete social institutions.

Oh dear, here we go again. More neurotic pseudo-intellectual twaddle ...😂

"...employers are given financial incentives to employ more people, resulting in damage to the environment This needs to end, protecting the environment is more important than preserving obsolete social institutions."

Brilliant solution to the pressing problem of clerks driving to work. Rather than more energy efficient modes of transportation, or working remotely, just get rid of the people altogether. Get rid of "obsolete social institutions" -  like jobs for human beings. Replace them with computers. Then we can get on with the prime objective - replacing humans with robots.

Old chap, your masters must be very pleased with you.

Focuspuller wrote:
Get rid of "obsolete social institutions" -  like jobs for human beings.

Quite so. People need to get away from the idea that having someone telling them what to do on a day to day basis is situation normal. They need to think for themselves now.

Focuspuller wrote:
Oh dear, here we go again. More neurotic pseudo-intellectual twaddle ...😂

haha.  With decades in the IT field. If Southy was a computer, I see a simple fix,  turn him off.