Cont: Global warming discussion V
- Thread starter lobosrul5
- Start date
Wait, building new wind farms requires resources that require billions of dollars of capital to fund? Who knew?
I thought any businesses that want to can just switch to clean renewable energy sources whenever they want to. So what are the billions needed for? Can't that be invested in education or medical research or fighting world hunger instead? When it comes to climate change only corporations' decisions matter. Governments, investors, and consumers should just go on doing whatever they want.
Sarcasm aside, Trump's actions are stupid and disastrous, and I wish Ørsted and their projects every success.
I thought any businesses that want to can just switch to clean renewable energy sources whenever they want to. So what are the billions needed for? Can't that be invested in education or medical research or fighting world hunger instead? When it comes to climate change only corporations' decisions matter. Governments, investors, and consumers should just go on doing whatever they want.
Sarcasm aside, Trump's actions are stupid and disastrous, and I wish Ørsted and their projects every success.
Lol. Big Wind hires rich guy who lives in a mansion, owns a plane, and vacations on super yachts to promote a product that doesn't exist. Nice try Big Wind, nice try. You know, Trump should annex Sweden, just for that ad.
Meanwhile in Canada, things are a little more clearer.
Yes, that tends to characterize Hollywood stars and other superstars, unfortunately.
Unlike, Sydney Sweeney, who only owns a pair of jeans/genes.
Unlike, Sydney Sweeney, who only owns a pair of jeans/genes.
Pages highlighted red contain false statements, whilst pages highlighted orange contain misleading statements. Pages can contain more than one false or misleading statement. Pages that remain uncoloured represent parts of the report that either have been stated as accurate by the cited author, or have not received any comment from invited experts. Front pages, reference and glossary pages omitted.
I know, eh. One celebrity equals aprox.1100 Dodge Ram pickup trucks driving around the city 24/7 but, hey, at least they have save the planet bumper stickers on them and look pretty.
Now climate scientists, there's another group that's run their course. How many of these guys does the world actually need 20, 30, 50? Here's a great pool of people who are dedicated to the cause (because nobody else really gives a crap anymore) that are ripe to be yoinked out of their climate controlled offices, stuffed into a pair of coveralls and set loose on a solar panel or wind turbine manufacturing plant floor for the betterment of humanity. Gawd knows, we don't need yet another report.
If it were only a question of predicting anthropogenic global warming, five or six qualified climate scientists would be more than enough, but they do more than that. And since global warming causes different problems in different countries, five or six won't be enough for the whole world.
However, as far as manpower is concerned, the main problem is that Big Oil keeps paying its troll army of fake scientists, influencers and crisis actors to pretend that global warming doesn't exist. "20, 30, 50" aren't nearly enough of those guys to fill the gaslighting demands of the fossil-fuel industry.
Now, that's where the jobs are, and that's where the real money is, so it is very unlikely that those people will ever get off their asses and work "for the betterment of humanity."
The Troll Army of Big Oil (Climate Town on YouTube, Jan 30, 2023 - 22:14 min.)
Astroturfing (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on YouTube, Aug 13, 2018 - 18:33 min.)
It is easier to persuade some people that there's nothing to worry about than others. You appear to be a particularly easy mark. The industry could save a lot of money on astroturfing if everybody was as easily persuaded as you.
However, as far as manpower is concerned, the main problem is that Big Oil keeps paying its troll army of fake scientists, influencers and crisis actors to pretend that global warming doesn't exist. "20, 30, 50" aren't nearly enough of those guys to fill the gaslighting demands of the fossil-fuel industry.
Now, that's where the jobs are, and that's where the real money is, so it is very unlikely that those people will ever get off their asses and work "for the betterment of humanity."
The Troll Army of Big Oil (Climate Town on YouTube, Jan 30, 2023 - 22:14 min.)
Astroturfing (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on YouTube, Aug 13, 2018 - 18:33 min.)
It is easier to persuade some people that there's nothing to worry about than others. You appear to be a particularly easy mark. The industry could save a lot of money on astroturfing if everybody was as easily persuaded as you.
The White House claiming that the days of stupidity are over in the USA while making it conspicuously obvious that they aren't:
I hope to see a Gavin Newsom parody of Trump's post in the very near future. He's getting quite good at it.
I hope to see a Gavin Newsom parody of Trump's post in the very near future. He's getting quite good at it.
Last edited:
So how's the complaining about climate change while sucking back barrels of oil plan working out? Not too well is it? Anybody out there ever think it would? Yea, they're delusional. Grasping on to that thin thread that any day now, wind and solar will take over the world and we'll all be saved and all we have to do is complain. Well that, and recycle...maybe buy an EV, or something.
Yep, we've heard it all before, we've heard it for decades. Big oil is making us buy their product. We have to take that trip to Thailand, we just have to order those new bathroom scales from China.
The smart money is all on resilience and adaptation now while the delusional float around in plastic boats screaming into the wind about the industry that makes modern life possible having blood on their hands.
Stout doesn't seem to grasp that no amount of ◊◊◊◊ posting will be able to cover up the reality that wind and solar are already taking over the world. And "any day now" is not only today. It has been happening for quite some time. Otherwise, we wouldn't be where we are now.
I don't know who the "we" is that Stout's talking about, but I assume that it's the radical right MAGA voters and the oligarchs who are paying for the fossil-fuel propaganda they are being fed.
Aalborg can do without coal in the six months of summer, and that's really good news for the climate
In May, the North Jutland Power Plant turned off their gigantic kettle, which is fueled by one of Denmark's dirtiest fuels: coal.
Since then, the power plant has been turned off.
And that's historic. Because it means that Denmark's supply of electric power has been running entirely without coal.
This is something that hasn't happened since the 19th century when we began to burn coal in Denmark and made coal the cornerstone of our supply of electricity and heat.
See graph of coal imports from 1966 to 2024 in the article. There is also a pie chart of the sources of energy used to generate electricity in Denmark: Wind 49%, Solar 8%. And the vast majority of the rest is based on other renewables.
And yes, in Denmark, the vast majority of people are aware that coal isn't clean. Changing reality is superior to pretending by making up moronic euphemisms and oxymorons. I don't expect Stout to understand the concept.
ETA: As for the hypocritical concerns uttered in this thread:
But what happens when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow? And even worse: What do you do if there is too much sun and wind for people to consume the generated electricity? How can it possibly work without fossil fuels - or at least nuclear?
Here's how: The energy grid right now!
I don't know who the "we" is that Stout's talking about, but I assume that it's the radical right MAGA voters and the oligarchs who are paying for the fossil-fuel propaganda they are being fed.
For a historically long period, Denmark hasn't burned dirty fuel: 'It's amazing if we can do without'
Aalborg can do without coal in the six months of summer, and that's really good news for the climate
In May, the North Jutland Power Plant turned off their gigantic kettle, which is fueled by one of Denmark's dirtiest fuels: coal.
Since then, the power plant has been turned off.
And that's historic. Because it means that Denmark's supply of electric power has been running entirely without coal.
This is something that hasn't happened since the 19th century when we began to burn coal in Denmark and made coal the cornerstone of our supply of electricity and heat.
See graph of coal imports from 1966 to 2024 in the article. There is also a pie chart of the sources of energy used to generate electricity in Denmark: Wind 49%, Solar 8%. And the vast majority of the rest is based on other renewables.
And yes, in Denmark, the vast majority of people are aware that coal isn't clean. Changing reality is superior to pretending by making up moronic euphemisms and oxymorons. I don't expect Stout to understand the concept.
ETA: As for the hypocritical concerns uttered in this thread:
But what happens when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow? And even worse: What do you do if there is too much sun and wind for people to consume the generated electricity? How can it possibly work without fossil fuels - or at least nuclear?
Here's how: The energy grid right now!
Last edited:
You can fantasize about renewables taking over the world all you like however it's not happening anywhere near fast enough and all those people who profess to care about AGW are more than happy to keep burning those fossil fuels while they wait.
CO2 Levels right now.
Is that radical right wing MAGA enough for ya?
CO2 Levels right now.
Is that radical right wing MAGA enough for ya?
Much too radical right wing MAGA.
But congratulations! That some countries are trying to avoid the catastrophe clearly doesn't mean that MAGA can't do its utmost to make it worse.
And MAGA has elected the right leader for the job.
Not that the alternative was any better.
But congratulations! That some countries are trying to avoid the catastrophe clearly doesn't mean that MAGA can't do its utmost to make it worse.
And MAGA has elected the right leader for the job.
Not that the alternative was any better.
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Unfortunately.
Ehh, meh. That's a rather hard sell, to say the least. Saying that the alternative wouldn't be good isn't hard to defend at all, but saying that the alternative would be no better than Trump is unreasonable. To point at one of the most obvious flaws in that bit of both-siderism, the Democratic Party, very much including Harris, actively promotes renewable energy and seeks to speed the larger transition, while Trump and co actively oppose and undermine renewables at the behest of the big polluters.
We can't possibly be talking about the same Democratic Party or the same Harris!
I am talking about these guys:
Last edited:
If Americans were really fussed about climate change, they wouldn't have grown up as American children being exposed to Big Oil indoctrination:
The Brainwashing Of America's Children (Climate Town on YouTube, Sep 12, 2023 - 28:03 min.)
Notice the argumentative tactics of Stout and other deniers of the damage being done by the fossil-fuel industry:
First you lie and lie and lie about the science of climate change, and when people then begin to doubt anthropogenic global warming, you point to the result of your own indoctrination as your main argument:
See?! People mistrust climate science, so it can't be good!
It's the same tactics currently used by MAHA:
1) Spread lies about (primarily but not only) mRNA vaccines.
2) Make people's mistrust in (mRNA) vaccines your main argument for defunding them.
Last edited:
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Unsurprisingly, that's hardly the whole picture. As I said, saying that the alternative wouldn't be good isn't hard to defend at all, which is what you just did, but saying that the alternative would be no better than Trump is unreasonable. None of what you just poked at contradicts that statement or even tries to address the points made.
I wasn't talking about whatever Harris and Trump represent outside of the theme of this thread, i.e. global warming.
When you write that "the Democratic Party, very much including Harris, actively promotes renewable energy and seeks to speed the larger transition," you can't have been talking about what the Democratic Party actually did during the presidency of Biden and Kamala Harris' campaign.
What they said they intended to do was nothing but empty promises.
Did you even read what was hidden by the spoiler?
Biden is approving more oil and gas drilling permit on public lands than Trump, analysis finds (WaPo, Dec 6, 2021)
Joe Biden Is Producing More Oil Than Donald Trump Did (Newsweek, Jan 9, 2024)
Big Oil is doing way better under Biden than under Trump (yahoo!finance, May 10, 2024)
Harris touts record oil boom as she embraces fossil fuels (Financial Post, Sep 11, 2024)
Harris twice invoked the surge in U.S. crude and natural gas production during Tuesday's debate
Or is that what you would call 'actively promoting renewable energy and seeking to speed the larger transition'?!
If that is the case, could you please explain it to me because I don't see it.
When you write that "the Democratic Party, very much including Harris, actively promotes renewable energy and seeks to speed the larger transition," you can't have been talking about what the Democratic Party actually did during the presidency of Biden and Kamala Harris' campaign.
What they said they intended to do was nothing but empty promises.
Did you even read what was hidden by the spoiler?
Biden is approving more oil and gas drilling permit on public lands than Trump, analysis finds (WaPo, Dec 6, 2021)
Joe Biden Is Producing More Oil Than Donald Trump Did (Newsweek, Jan 9, 2024)
Big Oil is doing way better under Biden than under Trump (yahoo!finance, May 10, 2024)
Harris touts record oil boom as she embraces fossil fuels (Financial Post, Sep 11, 2024)
Harris twice invoked the surge in U.S. crude and natural gas production during Tuesday's debate
Or is that what you would call 'actively promoting renewable energy and seeking to speed the larger transition'?!
If that is the case, could you please explain it to me because I don't see it.
Lol...u mad bro?
All I've ever said is the best way to reduce fossil fuel use is for people to stop burning fossil fuels. Mind blowing, I know. Radical alt-right MAGA nazi stuff.
This everybody-being-a-victim-of-big-oil argument is lame and stupid. We like our cars, vacations, plastics...modern life in general. Deal with it.
Stout is back with his "we" again as if I had ever claimed that people didn't like cars, vacations etc.
I think he has me confused with Myriad.
For both Myriad and Stout, the cause of the CO2 emissions that result in anthropogenic global warming is people's interest in creature comforts; they like pleasant, comfortable lives!
For Myriad, however, that is what is wrong with people: They should give up on those creature comforts because their complacent consumerism is the root cause of global warming. Austerity is his solution.
Whereas for Stout, this is what's wrong - not with people but - with the struggle against climate change: People like the stuff that causes CO2 emissions, so it's foolish to try to do anything about it.
What they are both in denial of is that consumption (creature comforts, a pleasant life) is not the cause of CO2 emissions. The cause of global warming is the way that the energy used to produce those creature comforts, i.e. by means of burning fossil fuels, is generated: by burning CO2.
This is Myriad and Stout both refuse to acknowledge that in many parts of the world the energy used to produce those creature comforts is now increasingly being generated in ways that don't add CO2 to the atmosphere.
This is why they ignore the facts I have presented again and again, most recently in post 2,010.
I think he has me confused with Myriad.
It's peculiar that this is the point where Stout and Myriad agree:
For both Myriad and Stout, the cause of the CO2 emissions that result in anthropogenic global warming is people's interest in creature comforts; they like pleasant, comfortable lives!
For Myriad, however, that is what is wrong with people: They should give up on those creature comforts because their complacent consumerism is the root cause of global warming. Austerity is his solution.
Whereas for Stout, this is what's wrong - not with people but - with the struggle against climate change: People like the stuff that causes CO2 emissions, so it's foolish to try to do anything about it.
What they are both in denial of is that consumption (creature comforts, a pleasant life) is not the cause of CO2 emissions. The cause of global warming is the way that the energy used to produce those creature comforts, i.e. by means of burning fossil fuels, is generated: by burning CO2.
This is Myriad and Stout both refuse to acknowledge that in many parts of the world the energy used to produce those creature comforts is now increasingly being generated in ways that don't add CO2 to the atmosphere.
This is why they ignore the facts I have presented again and again, most recently in post 2,010.