Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

Then kindly point me to something real.

Not David Wolf type garbage, not something "experimental" like "Solar Freaking Roadways", not some bullcrap "Give us money to make this true!" kind of garbage which infests the Internet. Give me some cold, hard facts.

How much electricity is produced by geothermal energy? Damned little. And most of the sites that do produce it are maintenance nightmares because of the chemicals that leech into the water on it's trip into and out of the earth again. And there are few places on the planet that it can even be done feasibly in the first place.

 

Actually, the "Acid Rain" was a big thing decades before then. It was first recognized way back in 1667.

However, it took mass media to turn it into something to be terrified about.

 

I know but Bowerbird apparently thinks that "Faux," like Sauron, has been plotting evil for thousands of years.

 

And to put it into perspective, the US is the world's leader in geothermal electricity production. Producing almost 1/3 of the power globally with geothermal sources.

But that 30% of global production is still only 0.3% of the US need for electricity. We could increase our geothermal production 100 times, and still it would only cover a fraction of our needs.

This is why sources like this should largely be ignored. They will never be more than a fractional provider other than in a few locations.

 

The problem is that a great many have agendas that they are actually pushing.

Then you get ones like me, I actually have no agenda. I actually do have a preferred source for power, as well as a secondary one. But I can guarantee that likely nobody has any idea what those are, as I rarely mention them.

However, I do have fun busting the quasi-science nonsense, and simply trying to have a conversation based upon facts, and not garbage and propaganda.



Me, I am very much a skeptic. And to be honest, I quit Facebook over 2 years ago because I got tired of constantly being blasted with things like "solar freaking roadways", "hyperloop", "trees that remove CO2 and turn them into diamonds", and crap like that. A lot of people though are apparently fooled into believing such garbage, and that honestly makes me sad.

However, I am also an "old school classic conservationist", and believe that the destruction to our natural habitat is of much more concern than cars. In fact, I will go a step farther. That if we increased selective and careful harvesting of our forests in the US, we could reduce our carbon footprint. Because trees are natural carbon sinks. And converting them into lumber and paper sequesters that carbon from the atmosphere. And by harvesting them, we then can allow more trees to grow, to sequester even more carbon.

A great way to sequester carbon actually would be to grow lots of massive bamboo forests. It grows fast, and sequesters a lot of carbon. Then simply go through every decade, cut them all down, bury them in the ground, and rinse and repeat. After all, that is how nature did it for hundreds of millions of years.

But no, we have to go high tech! Turn CO2 into... diamonds! Make fake trees (that the production of required a lot of carbon) to remove it through mechanical means! Because that's sexy! We can do even better than nature, we can be the improved nature!

And I just shake my head and sigh.

 

I also fit into the conservationist mode. I used to be a member of The Nature Conservancy, which worked to preserve species and environments for species to live with minimum intrusion with humans. They bought property for the sole purpose of buying habit and purchased property to link various wildlife properties together. That was a worthwhile endeavor.

 

As am I. My first years in the military was actually on a National Wildlife Refuge. The last natural salt marsh left in Southern California. And I spent my youth hiking and camping in real wilderness. Not just driving through a "national forest" and claiming that "takes me to nature".

Most "Environmentalists" to be honest make me sick. They have agendas they are pushing, and likely never really been "in the wilderness". They have this Bambi like understanding of nature, and scream that we are destroying it, even though we actually are a part of it. Then they do things like scream and rant and rave if a company wants to cut down a single tree, then scream again when hundreds of square miles of forest go up in flames because nobody managed it and the undergrowth was allowed to remain unchecked and the dead trees were never removed.

In reality, nature destroys itself all the time. Some species even need fires to reproduce. But the longer between fires, the worse the fires are. And as we for a century fought hard to stop all fires, we also had to then take the place of it and manage that land, which we failed to do.

I used to live in Oroville, just over the hill from Paradise. And I would look at the hills over those two cities and shake my head as I saw 20 year old trees growing in the fire breaks on the mountains. The firebreaks were allowed to be overgrown, because some said that was "natural", and that they caused erosion. But then we had the Camp Fire, and there were no firebreaks to stop it. And we lost over 153k acres, 18,000 structures, and 85 people.

And people still protest selective logging and forest management there. They will never learn.

 

Wilderness is great. And, forest management is an issue - including how high tension electric lines are managed.

BUT, that is certainly NOT the only environmental issue.

There are also the issues about where the population actually lives, food production, etc., etc. If we did an outstanding job of managing forest and range land, but failed in these other areas, it would be a stupendous disaster over time.

 

Actually, power lines are not part of the equation at all.

I was listening to the local news on my way to work that morning. Where they were already announcing possible blackouts due to high winds. And people calling up screaming that it was not needed, they had to have their electricity.

Just hours before the fire started.

Personally, I have long said we need a good plague to wipe out at least 20% of the human population. There are just too damned many people, and we are like a virus killing our host. There will never be enough resources everywhere to support our population, no matter what.

Laughingly, in many ways I think Thanos was right.

 

I don't see any argument from you here.

You have to do better than find cartoons and pretending they mean something.

 

Europe has been obsessed with this idiot lie for 30 plus years. Despite all the talk and all the BS you are still 70% reliant on fossil fuels. Why?

Then there are the geo political issues. Most European countries do not have much fossil fuel production so you have to import energy from unsavory countries like Russia and the middle east. Energy independence? Yet despite all the big talk and blather you are still 70% reliant on fossil fuels. What a joke.

So when are you going back to the 1920 lifestyles to save the planet? Obviously solar is not an option for most Europeans. You folks going vegan? All of you? Even for Octoberfest?

It's obvious where I'm going with this. It's bullcrap! Take your white guilt bullcrap and stick it where the sun don't shine.

 

https://www.statista.com/topics/4958/emissions-in-the-european-union/#topicHeader__wrapper

18% of the worlds carbon emissions(does not include the UK remember) coming from those in the world most obsessed with with this BS. So it is all talk. All an act. This we are white and hate ourselves bullcrap.

I guess little retarded Greta was right.

19 and not in college? No community colleges in Sweden?

How dare you!

 

Because we are not all French: in France they trust nuclear power.
And they are right.

 

It is a clean energy source.

 

You may denigrate the progress. Europe has been better than the US, by the way.

But, you are dodging the fact that climate change is happening and will continue, due to human causes.

 

Nuclear energy in the US was set back by the monumental failures, by serious accidents and by political and corporate marketing.

Also, we failed to have any plan for nuclear waste.

I think the US will make a new start on nuclear power, but it can not be done in the fashion it has been done.

 

Europe has been better than the US? Of course! They have a population density 3X higher and unlike us they do not have much in the way of fossil fuel reserves. They have failed miserably by comparison.

Why have they not weaned themselves off of fossil fuels by now? Because they know CC is bull?

 

The alleged objection does not exist.

 

Whatever change to our(world) climate that is happening it is minor and not necessarily bad. Some parts of the world have more rain and higher crop yields.

When a really poor country like Bangladesh increases their population by 100 million people in 50 years with less mal nutrition they are not suffering from an environmental crisis or a devastated eco system. It is the opposite!

 

They have done better than we have. And, they still have a competitive economy with their super high tax on fuel.

We're still the worst emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world on a per capita basis.

 

Did you read my post? They have no fossil fuels! Their population is 3X more dense. They should be all in on this crap 30 years ago but they know it is a lie.

And no the USA is not the highest per capita in carbon emissions but that is part of the this lie isn't it? Hate America hate whitey?

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/

Why are Canada and Australia worse per capita than us? They are big talkers also. It is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in the history of earth. Perpetrated by democrat heroes in private jets!

 

https://www.climatedepot.com/2020/1...r-john-kerry-owns-12-million-beachfront-home/

What a shock. John Kerry also owns a $12M home in Martha's Vineyard. Just like the Obamas! The east coast was supposed to be under water by 2000 remember?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nations-vanish-global-warming/

That's what they call science.

 

Ok, that must have changed recently.

However, the countries you mention emit only a small fraction of what the US emits.

 

Don't let outdated information keep you on the sidelines.

 

Hey - information changes!