Climate change discussion

[redfish]

You presented foolishness dressed as enquiry.


Vera likes you


Haw, haw..............................haw.

i get it, you have nothing to support your foolish positions. typical AGW moron.

 

[moon]

i get it, you have nothing to support your foolish positions. typical AGW moron.

Now you present more foolishness in support of your foolish exaggerations.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Hello redfish,



Every country is the problem. The USA is the home of octo mom. Plenty of people have more than one child. (which would be two per couple.) Every country has to reduce births. I don't 'plan' to do anything except state my opinion on this. Just because I am looking at the science and drawing logical conclusions does not obligate me to contrive a plan. That would be up to the leaders of the many nations, however they deem best to do it. Whatever they come up with, it must be done to save humanity from itself.



I believe the most logical place to get lots of clean energy with existing technology would be nuclear.



Agreed, so why not simply use tried and true lead-acid batteries, which are completely recyclable?



No, that is not the only answer. That is the answer which protects the profits of the rich executives and owners of the fossil fuel mega-corporations.



Would be nice, but I seriously doubt any benevolent visitors with advanced technology are showing up any time soon. And I refuse to believe there is no other answer. We should use what we have.

There are numerous R&D projects to produce safe nuclear. Many of them do not even require intricate cooling systems, and if left unattended simply shut down automatically. This would prevent anything like 3-mile Island, Chernobyl or Fukishima. The main impediment appears to be the regulatory system which was designed for 1950's style nuclear technology.

I wonder why we don't have this:

Electric cars which use quickly replaceable standardized lead-acid battery packs, recharged by electricity from Traveling Wave Reactors. Clean virtually unlimited motive energy.

Or

Hydrogen fuel cell cars where the hydrogen is generated from power derived from electricity from Traveling Wave Reactors.

It seems like we've had so many promising ideas I am perplexed as to why we have not scaled some of them up.

you're literally a nazi eugenicist.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello redfish,

I agree with you on nuclear, but the AGW crowd does not. Sooooooooooooooooooooooo

the way to find alternate sources of energy is to let the free market work it, not the government. The profit motive has created all of our technological advances, government has created nothing but waste and fraud.

Well I'll have to disagree with you there. First of all there is no free market. There is lots of regulation and for good reason. When nefarious characters acquire great wealth and power they become even greedier and more ruthless.

And even if there were a free market, it has zero incentive to seek clean sustainable energy. The only reason capitalists do anything is to seek wealth. The only reason energy capitalists would find alternative energy would be if it also happened to be cheaper.

Having cheap abundant energy is what got us into this mess.

We must now change our priorities.

 

[tinfoil]

It's so lame how climate tards dismiss the links I provide by saying "Uhhhh, lone guy on the internet? I don't think so" when the links are from reputable sources like NCAR and Kevin Trenberth, the scientist who came up with the missing heat theory that climate alarmists believe.

 

[Micawber]

We won this argument 20 years ago. Nothing to discuss.

 

[Into the Night]

No shit dumbass.

Here' another one: Foreign assholes interfering in American politics are unregistered foreign agents.

Here's another one: It's dark at night. Do you understand this, dumbass?

Read this: https://climate.nasa.gov/ I'll quiz you later.

So you have no intention on defining 'global warming'. NASA doesn't either. Why do you keep posting Holy Links to NASA? Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So you have no intention on defining 'global warming'. NASA doesn't either. Why do you keep posting Holy Links to NASA? Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'.

I can't read the website for you, son. No matter since, if you want to learn, you'll learn. If you want to be blind to reality, you will be.

 

[Into the Night]

Hello redfish,
We don't think we need any 'unproven link.' Most pollution is not causing climate change.

Who is 'we'? Define 'pollution'. Define 'climate change'.

Hello redfish,
The only link came about when the EPA decided to classify excess CO2 as a pollutant

Define 'excess CO2'. Define 'pollution'.

Hello redfish,
in order to bring pollution laws to bear on the problem.

Define 'pollution'.

Hello redfish,
Industrial activity and transportation which release tons of carbon into the atmosphere, more than can be absorbed by plants and photosynthesis,

Plants don't use carbon. Carbon in the atmosphere settles out with every rain. It is fuel.

Hello redfish,
have caused a warming effect for the entire planet.

Define 'global warming'. No solid, liquid, or gas is capable of warming the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.

Hello redfish,
If there were simply far fewer humans on Earth, the planet would be able to absorb these emissions, no problem.

Why is all this fuel being emitted a problem? You have not defined 'the problem'.

Hello redfish,
The problem is there are too many humans to allow everyone to do this.

Do what?

Hello redfish,
If the entire world emitted as much carbon per individual as the USA does, climate change and habitat destruction would be far more advanced.

Define 'climate change'. Define 'habitat destruction'. Where is habitat being destroyed? Who's habitat? How does carbon destroy anything? It is not an corrosive agent. It is a fuel. How, exactly do the States of America emit more carbon?

Hello redfish,
Developing nations are racing toward trying to achieve what Americans have, and that is making the problem far worse.

Define 'the problem'. You have still not defined 'the problem'.

Hello redfish,
Something has to be done.

About what?

Hello redfish,
We cannot continue on our current course.

Who is 'we'? What course are 'we' on? Who set this 'course'? Who is the captain?

 

[Into the Night]

we agree, why do you want to argue?

Because we didn't agree.

 

[Into the Night]

what exactly do you think should be done? mass extermination of humans? return to living in caves? stop reproducing? stop moving around? What????

All good questions. Unfortunately, he never defined 'the problem'. He never defined 'pollution', 'climate change', 'excess CO2', and seems to equate CO2 with C. He never defined 'we' either. I assume he is attempting to speak for everyone again, as if he were God.

 

[Into the Night]

Such exaggerations are foolishness . Better management of our life-styles is relatively easy. Ecocidal capitalism is a major obstacle though.

Define 'ecocide'. Explain how this is related to an economic structure of any kind.

 

[Into the Night]

Into the Night is an untreated Paranoid Schizophrenic. All you kneed to know about him can be found by clicking the link to his faux forum and manifesto in the signature links of him and his socks IBDaMann and gfm7175...the "mods" on his fake forum. He's smart, just sick. Not Ted Kacynski smart, but smarter than average. I'm guessing in the 110-125 range.

https://politiplex.freeforums.net/board/19/debunking-signature

Psychoquackery. YALSA. Thank you, however, for providing a link to the Politplex forum.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Psychoquackery. YALSA. Thank you, however, for providing a link to the Politplex forum.

Disagreed. You're welcome. The biggest proof of your paranoia schizophrenia is your own manifesto and website.

 

[Into the Night]

No, we do not need: "mass extermination of humans? return to living in caves? stop reproducing? stop moving around? "

Basically we need fewer humans over a long period of time. Humans die naturally, so nobody has to be killed. What needs to be done is to greatly reduce the number of young replacement humans being reproduced. There must be far fewer births. A maximum of two children per family worldwide would do it, but I don't know if that would be quick enough. There may have to be further incentives to have even fewer children. Naturally, religion is going to be a big stumbling block there.

Who are YOU to decide whether people choose to reproduce? You are not the king. Stop referring to yourself as 'we'. Are you schizo or something? How many personalities do you have??

We also need to work very diligently at efficient use of resources and energy, look for ways to reduce waste and get the most out of our energy.

Good old capitalism is good at that.

And it is time for liberals to take a fresh look at nuclear energy. That is almost totally carbon neutral. What needs to be done there is develop safe nuclear energy.

Already have it. What do liberals have to do with it?

If we produced most of our electricity with means other than fossil fuels, and we also converted from mostly ICE vehicles to electric, we could severely reduce our emissions.

Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. Emissions of what? CO2? C? H2O? H2SO4?

I have often wondered why we don't use existing technology to do more.

Who is 'we'? Nothing prevents you from doing as much as you want with existing technology.

What if cars had easily interchangeable battery packs?

A typical battery in a Model 3 Tesla weighs 1400 lbs and the vehicle is capable of drawing some 200 amps from it. This battery basically is the bulk of the frame of the car. Have you ever SEEN one of these suckers? Define 'easily interchangable'.

What if there was a universal fixture and standardized battery packs that could be inserted from below the vehicle? Vehicles with depleted batteries could drive in to a swap station, pay a price, get their battery pack(s) swapped out for fresh ones, and drive on their way. The whole operation should take no longer than filling up a gasoline car. So what if they only go 80 or 100 miles on a charge? If we streamline the process the driver would not even have to get out of the vehicle.

Moving around 3/4 of a ton of highly flammable battery is not as easy as filling your gasoline tank with 20 gallons of highly flammable fuel. You have to remove the body of the car to get at the battery. You must disconnect wiring that is passing some 200 amperes. The battery does not drop out the bottom of the car. What sort of latching mechanism do you consider safe for carrying 3/4 of a ton under a car?? Do you realize just how LARGE the connectors would have to be? How are you protecting them from the typical mud and gunk and water that gets under a car?

Parking places at work and shopping centers could have vehicle recharging capability. Again, make it a standardized automatic operation. You pull up, push a button or two, get some more charge while you're there. Certainly there is a way to measure and bill individuals according to their usage. I don't really see an impediment to building a very sustainable system with current technology.

The batteries still have to be charged at a rate faster than people coming in to drop them off. Sorry, but you've only added complexity without solving the time it takes to charge an electric car battery.

Sure, we should work on better systems, newer more efficient technology. Of course we should continue to to that. But in the meantime we need something to more readily and em masse, move away from gasoline.

What's wrong with gasoline?

 

[Into the Night]

Bigger problem!

More of the usual denial. All plastics break down in UV light. Plastics are also food...for bacteria. These naturally exist in both oceans and in landfills. This is what breaks down the plastic (and a lot of other things!). Landfills have membranes to prevent leaching. After a landfill is filled, it becomes a park, golf course, or wildlife area, and it also becomes a natural gas field (as the plastics and other stuff are broken down by bacteria, they produce methane! A fuel!).

 

[Jerome]

I think we all agree with you in general. But in the 1970s you libs were telling us that all the oil would be gone by the year 2000. Also in the 70s you told us that we were beginning a new ice age.

Almost no one was saying that.

Europe has tried solar and wind and it has left them starving for energy. Nuclear works and is clean and safe when done right, why not push that?

Solar and wind are now cheaper energy sources than fossil fuels. This is patently false.

 

[Jerome]

co2 is not a pollutant. the envirohoax is just an excuse for culling humanity dreamt up by internationalist fascist psychotics.

Correct, but it's a greenhouse gas that is FAR more effective than water at ramping up the heating (and extinction of species) on our planet.

The only worse greenhouse gas is methane, and we're doing a fine job of melting all of the Siberian tundra that holds that:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...reveal-long-standing-shortfalls-in-oversight/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-levels-reach-an-all-time-high/

 

[Jerome]

I agree with you on nuclear, but the AGW crowd does not. Sooooooooooooooooooooooo

the way to find alternate sources of energy is to let the free market work it, not the government. The profit motive has created all of our technological advances, government has created nothing but waste and fraud.

It wasn't "profit motive" that handed trillions to energy companies throughout the 21st and 20th centuries to explore for oil and gas.

The profit motive will actually soon require more reliance on solar/wind/fusion, because global warming itself is becoming too expensive to continue to use fossil fuels. Even the DoD agrees with this:

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/...res-climate-changes-a-national-security-issue

 

[Into the Night]

Every country is the problem.

Define 'the Problem'.

The USA is the home of octo mom. Plenty of people have more than one child. (which would be two per couple.) Every country has to reduce births. I don't 'plan' to do anything except state my opinion on this. Just because I am looking at the science and drawing logical conclusions does not obligate me to contrive a plan. That would be up to the leaders of the many nations, however they deem best to do it. Whatever they come up with, it must be done to save humanity from itself.

So you advocate fascism, dictatorships and oligarchies, and government deciding who is allowed to reproduce.

I believe the most logical place to get lots of clean energy with existing technology would be nuclear.

Nuclear power plants are capable of producing a lot of energy. They do require an expensive fuel, however, in the form of uranium. Uranium is a non-renewable energy source.

Agreed, so why not simply use tried and true lead-acid batteries, which are completely recyclable?

A LiO Tesla battery pack weighs 3/4 of a ton. An equivalence lead-acid pack would weigh over two tons, more than the weight the tires and suspension system on that car could bear. Lead acid cells can be expected to last about five years before requiring replacement, and access would have to be provided to maintain the electrolyte levels of each cell. The electrolyte on a lead acid cell is a liquid of dilute sulfuric acid. This is NOT recyclable. This is discarded. The lead sulfide plates are melted down, but the sulfide dross is skimmed off and discarded. The battery failed because of lead sulfate buildup in the battery box over the life of the battery. This corrosive salt is discarded when the battery is recycled.

No, that is not the only answer. That is the answer which protects the profits of the rich executives and owners of the fossil fuel mega-corporations.

What is wrong with profit? There are no 'fossil fuel mega corporations'. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. What do you have against oil products like gasoline?

Would be nice, but I seriously doubt any benevolent visitors with advanced technology are showing up any time soon. And I refuse to believe there is no other answer. We should use what we have.

You still have not defined 'The Problem'.

There are numerous R&D projects to produce safe nuclear. Many of them do not even require intricate cooling systems, and if left unattended simply shut down automatically. This would prevent anything like 3-mile Island, Chernobyl or Fukishima. The main impediment appears to be the regulatory system which was designed for 1950's style nuclear technology.

Nuclear plants do not require complex cooling systems. It's pretty simple, actually.

I wonder why we don't have this:
Electric cars which use quickly replaceable standardized lead-acid battery packs, recharged by electricity from Traveling Wave Reactors. Clean virtually unlimited motive energy.

Weight. Cost. Release of harmful materials such as lead sulfates and lead sulfides into the environment at recycling centers, causing vegetation loss and damage to wildlife near the center. You still have to charge the batteries at a rate greater than the number of discharged ones coming in to be charged. You are just adding complexity. You might as well just fuel up a gasoline car.

Or

Hydrogen fuel cell cars where the hydrogen is generated from power derived from electricity from Traveling Wave Reactors.

inefficient. Hydrogen has a low BTU and is a bulky fuel.

It seems like we've had so many promising ideas I am perplexed as to why we have not scaled some of them up.

Inefficiency. Cost. Weight. The conservation of energy law.