Climate science doesn't belong in the basement of "woke" belief systems that you cover in the universe of CRT polemics and grievance studies. Despite the noise created by environmentalists and activists who pursue misguided agendas to prevent fossil fuels consumption, climate science is grounded in hard science from research universities internationally, including those unaffected by woke discourse. Similarly, clean energy expansion has been driven by the cold hand of capitalism and economic decision-making. A few key points:
- Contrary to remarks above, California has phased out nuclear power for many decades because of general public anxiety. CA recently extended the life of Diablo Canyon in response to the newly appreciated value of nuclear as a clean energy source.
- Solar and wind aren't unknown or unproven. In the clean tech and renewables industries, there's widespread understanding of their current limitations and the amount of innovation required to bridge current gaps. Silicon valley, once again, is driving exciting change and building solutions.
- Solar simply costs less that fossil fuel energy production, esp. in developing nations where no grid infrastructure exists. Just as wireless phone service made the build out of land line infrastructure obsolete, the same will occur w/ energy systems in many developing nations. Grid systems of the future won't be centralized and monolithic.
I’m going to regret asking this I think. What do you mean by storage? Battery storage? You do realize there is no battery storage technology in existence today that can realistically store energy long enough to be useful.
No offence, but you can’t look at your arrangement at home and project this across the globe.
Ice core samples reveal that atmospheric CO2 was many times higher than now when dinosaurs roamed the earth, and clearly the result was nothing like what "environmental" doomsayers today keep parroting. I think it would be reasonable to set a goal of returning to about double what we have now, around one part per thousand. This is still less than for most of earth's history.
The people that are anti-nuclear haven’t done the research. It is viable and less dangerous overall than fossil fuels. Solar is vastly underfunded and underutilized, as is geothermal. Fossil fuels are too expensive, the only reason we use them is giant capital costs already invested in them.
Sooo, the author gets the main argument completely wrong, so I suspect that all of the rest of his comments are based on bad information as well. Getting to net zero by 2050 will not limit the global temperature by 1.5 degrees. That ant even close to the case. It takes the earth and the ocean some 20+ years to reach equilibrium once additional heat is introduced. We are already above the 1.5 degeee target. To get to 1.5 degrees only we would need to go negative in carbon, which isn’t going to happen.
I’ll have to research the accusation that Exxon knew about global warming in 1977. It’s a new allegation and I haven’t checked it out. I’m skeptical, however, because global warming didn’t become an issue until Hanson testified in Congress in 1989.
No offence, I just find a lot of this big oil rhetoric tedious and disingenuous. I’ve yet to see any evidence of a massive Exxon ad campaign and big donations to climate deniers, think tanks or NGOs. A $50,000 grant here, another $75,000 grant there. It’s literally pocket change when it comes climate.
Yet no one seems to complain about the Associated Press, a supposedly unbiased media institution, getting $8 mill two years ago from alarmist NGOs to promote climate news. I can literally cite dozens of examples like this.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
“ Oh, absolutely. It's even worse in some ways as we were working our way through Covid. There were a lot of scientific uncertainties particularly early on, and we started to understand more and more. But you couldn't say that one thing was more right than another at the beginning. It's just that you should have given credence to some of these alternative views, which was not done, as you point out.”
When we ignore history we can make statements like this. Fauci and company did the COVID scare with AIDS/HIV. If you knew that you would have known COVID was like The Spectrum ad, “nonsense.”
How this relates to Climate hysteria history again shows the fear the activists are spreading have been around for years.
From what I have read, there is no way we can satisfy the global desire for energy with solar and wind power, at least not with existing technology. So why aren't people talking about nuclear power?
The PV system on our roof is the primary source of power for the household and both electric cars. We do not have to go out to gas up, or need oil changes, or emissions checks or any engine maintenance at all! The PV system paid back in three years in gasoline savings alone.
Why don't you shed your political biases and try it?
Glenn If the goal were to destroy young black people: 1- Withhold the truth from them eg lie about the facts of life a] Crime statistics broken down by demographics If black, and I truly believed that police killed Blacks more than others, I would be very angry and I am sure deranged as well b] If not trusted to deal with the truth, would I pursue it?
I would incentivize the parents to Grow Up already and give the kids the childhood they deserve. THANKS FOR YOUR FIGHT FOR TRUTH, BEAUTY AND THE AMERICAN WAY FOR "YOUR PEOPLE" GOD CHOSE YOU TO LEAD WITH LOVE
I earned a Master of Science in his field, and want to debate the issues. We can start with Ocean Acidification. Are you concerned or are you uninformed?
I earned a Master of Science in Environmental Management in 1982, and was a senior engineer for PG&E in the 1980s. This is nothing more than a right-wing hit job, to be swallowed by those without decent educations.
It is true what the real scientists say, but we can help by taking our own actions which result in significant savings. My household and both electric cars are primarily powered by the PV system on our roof. We do not have to go out to gas up We need no oil changes, transmission work, in fact no engine maintenance at all! We get free power now, with the PV system having paid back in three years. Do any of you do this? Why not?
Is there any discussion in the book that global warming may not be related to CO2 but just natural? I have read in several places that even if there is a correlation between global warming and CO2, that the global warming comes first. The conclusion is, that a natural rise in global temperature CAUSES a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around. If this is true, there is no point in trying to dramatically reduce CO2, since it is natural.
I have a progressive friend who is always telling me the future is electric. If that ever comes to pass, the control that government will have on mobility, heating, cooling , manufacturing, etc. will be staggering. Whole segments could be cut off or cut back from electricity for environmental or perhaps political reasons. The smart meters could, and probably will be used to do this. I can see a scenario where those in power say your home is too warm or too cold, you've driven more than your allotment, your business makes things which are not environmentally friendly or they are dangerous and your electricity will be cut back
Net Zero is a scam.
It is a Hollywood Accounting Scheme and nothing gets done.
Absolute Zero Emissions in Transportation however is a technological possibility based on my and other Inventions.
Around the World in 4 Hours
With absolute Zero Emissions
Replace all Aviation with Hypersonic Zero Emission Trains.
Around the World in under 4h.
Coast to coast say New York LA SF 1h
https://fritzfreud.substack.com/p/around-the-world-in-4-hours
Climate science doesn't belong in the basement of "woke" belief systems that you cover in the universe of CRT polemics and grievance studies. Despite the noise created by environmentalists and activists who pursue misguided agendas to prevent fossil fuels consumption, climate science is grounded in hard science from research universities internationally, including those unaffected by woke discourse. Similarly, clean energy expansion has been driven by the cold hand of capitalism and economic decision-making. A few key points:
- Contrary to remarks above, California has phased out nuclear power for many decades because of general public anxiety. CA recently extended the life of Diablo Canyon in response to the newly appreciated value of nuclear as a clean energy source.
- Solar and wind aren't unknown or unproven. In the clean tech and renewables industries, there's widespread understanding of their current limitations and the amount of innovation required to bridge current gaps. Silicon valley, once again, is driving exciting change and building solutions.
- Solar simply costs less that fossil fuel energy production, esp. in developing nations where no grid infrastructure exists. Just as wireless phone service made the build out of land line infrastructure obsolete, the same will occur w/ energy systems in many developing nations. Grid systems of the future won't be centralized and monolithic.
- Future of energy is abundance at prices approaching zero, enabling innovation that has been out of reach for the last century. A great summary: https://ryanavent.substack.com/p/was-coal-the-low-hanging-fruit
I’m going to regret asking this I think. What do you mean by storage? Battery storage? You do realize there is no battery storage technology in existence today that can realistically store energy long enough to be useful.
No offence, but you can’t look at your arrangement at home and project this across the globe.
Ice core samples reveal that atmospheric CO2 was many times higher than now when dinosaurs roamed the earth, and clearly the result was nothing like what "environmental" doomsayers today keep parroting. I think it would be reasonable to set a goal of returning to about double what we have now, around one part per thousand. This is still less than for most of earth's history.
The people that are anti-nuclear haven’t done the research. It is viable and less dangerous overall than fossil fuels. Solar is vastly underfunded and underutilized, as is geothermal. Fossil fuels are too expensive, the only reason we use them is giant capital costs already invested in them.
Sooo, the author gets the main argument completely wrong, so I suspect that all of the rest of his comments are based on bad information as well. Getting to net zero by 2050 will not limit the global temperature by 1.5 degrees. That ant even close to the case. It takes the earth and the ocean some 20+ years to reach equilibrium once additional heat is introduced. We are already above the 1.5 degeee target. To get to 1.5 degrees only we would need to go negative in carbon, which isn’t going to happen.
I’ll have to research the accusation that Exxon knew about global warming in 1977. It’s a new allegation and I haven’t checked it out. I’m skeptical, however, because global warming didn’t become an issue until Hanson testified in Congress in 1989.
No offence, I just find a lot of this big oil rhetoric tedious and disingenuous. I’ve yet to see any evidence of a massive Exxon ad campaign and big donations to climate deniers, think tanks or NGOs. A $50,000 grant here, another $75,000 grant there. It’s literally pocket change when it comes climate.
Yet no one seems to complain about the Associated Press, a supposedly unbiased media institution, getting $8 mill two years ago from alarmist NGOs to promote climate news. I can literally cite dozens of examples like this.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C. S. Lewis
“ Oh, absolutely. It's even worse in some ways as we were working our way through Covid. There were a lot of scientific uncertainties particularly early on, and we started to understand more and more. But you couldn't say that one thing was more right than another at the beginning. It's just that you should have given credence to some of these alternative views, which was not done, as you point out.”
When we ignore history we can make statements like this. Fauci and company did the COVID scare with AIDS/HIV. If you knew that you would have known COVID was like The Spectrum ad, “nonsense.”
How this relates to Climate hysteria history again shows the fear the activists are spreading have been around for years.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/09/20/delingpole-environment-canada-airbrushes-100-years-of-inconvenient-climate-data-out-of-history/
https://www.netzerowatch.com/content/uploads/2021/03/A-Short-History-Of-Climate-Alarm.pdf
From what I have read, there is no way we can satisfy the global desire for energy with solar and wind power, at least not with existing technology. So why aren't people talking about nuclear power?
The PV system on our roof is the primary source of power for the household and both electric cars. We do not have to go out to gas up, or need oil changes, or emissions checks or any engine maintenance at all! The PV system paid back in three years in gasoline savings alone.
Why don't you shed your political biases and try it?
Glenn If the goal were to destroy young black people: 1- Withhold the truth from them eg lie about the facts of life a] Crime statistics broken down by demographics If black, and I truly believed that police killed Blacks more than others, I would be very angry and I am sure deranged as well b] If not trusted to deal with the truth, would I pursue it?
I would incentivize the parents to Grow Up already and give the kids the childhood they deserve. THANKS FOR YOUR FIGHT FOR TRUTH, BEAUTY AND THE AMERICAN WAY FOR "YOUR PEOPLE" GOD CHOSE YOU TO LEAD WITH LOVE
I earned a Master of Science in his field, and want to debate the issues. We can start with Ocean Acidification. Are you concerned or are you uninformed?
I earned a Master of Science in Environmental Management in 1982, and was a senior engineer for PG&E in the 1980s. This is nothing more than a right-wing hit job, to be swallowed by those without decent educations.
It is true what the real scientists say, but we can help by taking our own actions which result in significant savings. My household and both electric cars are primarily powered by the PV system on our roof. We do not have to go out to gas up We need no oil changes, transmission work, in fact no engine maintenance at all! We get free power now, with the PV system having paid back in three years. Do any of you do this? Why not?
Is there any discussion in the book that global warming may not be related to CO2 but just natural? I have read in several places that even if there is a correlation between global warming and CO2, that the global warming comes first. The conclusion is, that a natural rise in global temperature CAUSES a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around. If this is true, there is no point in trying to dramatically reduce CO2, since it is natural.
I have a progressive friend who is always telling me the future is electric. If that ever comes to pass, the control that government will have on mobility, heating, cooling , manufacturing, etc. will be staggering. Whole segments could be cut off or cut back from electricity for environmental or perhaps political reasons. The smart meters could, and probably will be used to do this. I can see a scenario where those in power say your home is too warm or too cold, you've driven more than your allotment, your business makes things which are not environmentally friendly or they are dangerous and your electricity will be cut back