Climate Activism Has a Cult Problem

[homersapien 11,373]

45 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

I've done the research. I do it every day. I also listen to loons like yourself every day. 

Actually, I don't think you are either reading or listening. You are obviously closed minded.

And the insult doesn't bother me.  Presumably you think everyone who accepts AGW - including the consensus of scientists - are "loons" which is patently absurd.  So the joke's on you.  You just owned yourself.

Edited January 31, 2023 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

First, one of the basic principles in doing research and arriving at a valid conclusion is what is known as controlling for (natural) variation.  I can assure you that the science takes into account all sources of warming that can play a roll.  And for the last 2,000 years, without the effect of greenhouse gases, the earth would still be in a natural, 50 million year old, cooling cycle.

https://www.britannica.com/science/climate-change/The-last-great-cooling

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-global-warming-merely-a-natural-cycle/a-57831350

So not only does your first sentence ignore time frames there is no evidence for it. There are no natural causes - other than greenhouse gases - to account for the current rate of warming. (Additional references below)

I agree with your second paragraph.

As for your last statement on Gore and Kerry, that's just your opinion.  I disagree, but you are certainly entitled to it.

 

 

What do you propose is the best solution to the problem?

[johnnyAU 3,630]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Presumably you think everyone who accepts - including the consensus of scientists - are "loons".  So the joke's on you.  You just owned yourself.

I don't call just anyone loons.  Those who blindly follow, refuse to question, spend most of their days on message boards spinning their ideological narratives are the loons. I'd expect some folks are just wrong. Others know they are touting BS and do it anyway. Those are much worse than loons. I'm just hoping you aren't one of the latter.

[homersapien 11,373]

17 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

What do you propose is the best solution to the problem?

You want me to write a book on this forum???

In short, I think our approach should be comprehensive, starting with the obvious - reduce energy consumption at every level and every possible way.  There's enormous opportunity in that.

Upgrading things like the electrical grid and public transportation will be needed. (Biden's infra structure investment is hopefully a modest first step.) 

Meanwhile, we need to develop every source of "clean" energy technology possible, on the assumption we'll need them all.  This would obviously include nuclear as well as solar and wind. (I personally doubt fusion will play a role until it's almost too late, but I could be wrong.)

There will be opportunities in agricultural science to be explored, such as modified crops and new production methods. 

Hopefully population growth can be concurrently attenuated or managed, especially in areas than cannot be expected to support their population increases.

Off the top of my head, that's about as simple and brief as I can make it.  I probably left significant things out.  There are many articles - and books - that address and/or propose mitigation strategies for global warming.

 

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,373]

 

26 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

I don't call just anyone loons.  Those who blindly follow, refuse to question, spend most of their days on message boards spinning their ideological narratives are the loons. I'd expect some folks are just wrong. Others know they are touting BS and do it anyway. Those are much worse than loons. I'm just hoping you aren't one of the latter.

Well, you called me one, so obviously I am wasting my time with you.

It's not like you have presented reasonable - much less supported - arguments.

So bye.

Edited January 31, 2023 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,801]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

I also listen to loons like yourself every day. 

[SaltyTiger 7,801]

59 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

I don't call just anyone loons.  Those who blindly follow, refuse to question, spend most of their days on message boards spinning their ideological narratives are the loons. I'd expect some folks are just wrong. Others know they are touting BS and do it anyway. Those are much worse than loons. I'm just hoping you aren't one of the latter.

I wouldn’t call Brother Homer a loon about it. He does bring a good argument and is well studied. He also has plenty of petro burning toys around the farm.

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

33 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I wouldn’t call Brother Homer a loon about it. He does bring a good argument and is well studied. He also has plenty of petro burning toys around the farm.

And not willing to give up those petro burning toys, just like the ones he disagrees with.

[johnnyAU 3,630]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

 

Well, you called me one, so obviously I am wasting my time with you.

It's not like you have presented reasonable - much less supported - arguments.

So bye.

You have supplied only ad hominem and appeal to consensus, as always. Speculation and reliance on a mythical "consensus" aren't, and never will be science or a valid argument.

[johnnyAU 3,630]

45 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I wouldn’t call Brother Homer a loon about it. He does bring a good argument and is well studied. He also has plenty of petro burning toys around the farm.

I agree that loon is a bit strong for him, but since he calls me a "denier" I'll leave it at that. 

[SaltyTiger 7,801]

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

And not willing to give up those petro burning toys, just like the ones he disagrees with.

Doubt the compact electric tractors are suitable for the farm yet. Golf course maintenance maybe.

[SaltyTiger 7,801]

2 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

I agree that loon is a bit strong for him, but since he calls me a "denier" I'll leave it at that. 

“Denier”, does sound a bit cultish. Understand completely.

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

23 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Doubt the compact electric tractors are suitable for the farm yet. Golf course maintenance maybe.

There really is no excuse for a true believer, ask Greta.

[slot canyon 1,333]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

You want me to write a book on this forum???

In short, I think our approach should be comprehensive, starting with the obvious - reduce energy consumption at every level and every possible way.  There's enormous opportunity in that.

Upgrading things like the electrical grid and public transportation will be needed. (Biden's infra structure investment is hopefully a modest first step.) 

Meanwhile, we need to develop every source of "clean" energy technology possible, on the assumption we'll need them all.  This would obviously include nuclear as well as the solar and wind. (I personally doubt fusion will play a role until it's almost too late, but I could be wrong.)

There will be opportunities in agricultural science to be made, such as crops and new production methods. 

Hopefully population growth can be concurrently attenuated or managed, especially in areas than cannot be expected to support their population increases.

Off the top of my head, that's about as simple and brief as I can make it.  I probably left significant things out.  There are many articles - and books - that address and/or propose mitigation strategies for global warming.

 

 

This article seems to cover many of the above points from both the positives and negatives.  It is lengthy but I feel a good read.  The author has background in engineering and finance and clearly expresses her desire for a "clean environment" but details some of the problems in attempting to achieve it. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4551061-energy-still-major-problem

[arein0 956]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

You want me to write a book on this forum???

In short, I think our approach should be comprehensive, starting with the obvious - reduce energy consumption at every level and every possible way.  There's enormous opportunity in that.

Upgrading things like the electrical grid and public transportation will be needed. (Biden's infra structure investment is hopefully a modest first step.) 

Meanwhile, we need to develop every source of "clean" energy technology possible, on the assumption we'll need them all.  This would obviously include nuclear as well as the solar and wind. (I personally doubt fusion will play a role until it's almost too late, but I could be wrong.)

There will be opportunities in agricultural science to be made, such as crops and new production methods. 

Hopefully population growth can be concurrently attenuated or managed, especially in areas than cannot be expected to support their population increases.

Off the top of my head, that's about as simple and brief as I can make it.  I probably left significant things out.  There are many articles - and books - that address and/or propose mitigation strategies for global warming.

 

 

To add on, I think Tidal Energy could be massive.

[homersapien 11,373]

13 hours ago, arein0 said:

To add on, I think Tidal Energy could be massive.

That's one I knew I was leaving out.  Don't know that much about it's potential.  Need to brush up on it.

Edited February 1, 2023 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,159]

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

You want me to write a book on this forum???

In short, I think our approach should be comprehensive, starting with the obvious - reduce energy consumption at every level and every possible way.  There's enormous opportunity in that.

Upgrading things like the electrical grid and public transportation will be needed. (Biden's infra structure investment is hopefully a modest first step.) 

Meanwhile, we need to develop every source of "clean" energy technology possible, on the assumption we'll need them all.  This would obviously include nuclear as well as solar and wind. (I personally doubt fusion will play a role until it's almost too late, but I could be wrong.)

There will be opportunities in agricultural science to be explored, such as modified crops and new production methods. 

Hopefully population growth can be concurrently attenuated or managed, especially in areas than cannot be expected to support their population increases.

Off the top of my head, that's about as simple and brief as I can make it.  I probably left significant things out.  There are many articles - and books - that address and/or propose mitigation strategies for global warming.

 

 

Have you researched much into carbon capture and reuse? The aviation industry is investing a good bit into this and I think will ultimately be a driver for this technology to be scaled up. As far as transportation goes I think that this will be the best overall solution. Essentially if we can get the economies of scale in place we can basically have a closed loop of "fossil fuels." Not to mention the other products it can be used for. 

https://news.stanford.edu/2022/02/09/turning-carbon-dioxide-gasoline-efficiently/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2023/01/31/united-airlines-green-fuel/11148766002/

https://simpleflying.com/emirates-operates-boeing-777-100-saf-one-engine/

[homersapien 11,373]

15 hours ago, slot canyon said:

This article seems to cover many of the above points from both the positives and negatives.  It is lengthy but I feel a good read.  The author has background in engineering and finance and clearly expresses her desire for a "clean environment" but details some of the problems in attempting to achieve it. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4551061-energy-still-major-problem

Thanks!  That's an interesting analysis of the supply part of the equation. 

Unfortunately, such an precise analysis of the (unaccounted, indirect) costs of global warming is not so easily done, due to the inherent complexity.  Although - as you said - she does allude to it, especially with her comment regarding her prediction of the coming nuclear renaissance/resurgence.   That seems inevitable to me also.

One of my concerns is that warming may not be linear as it proceeds. (See feedback of trapped methane for example.)

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ticking-timebomb-siberia-thawing-permafrost-releases-more-methane-180978381/ 

Such a non-linear increase in warming could really impact the time available (to avoid mass starvation of the global population) while effecting a transition to "clean" energy.

Edited February 1, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,373]

8 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Have you researched much into carbon capture and reuse? The aviation industry is investing a good bit into this and I think will ultimately be a driver for this technology to be scaled up. As far as transportation goes I think that this will be the best overall solution. Essentially if we can get the economies of scale in place we can basically have a closed loop of "fossil fuels." Not to mention the other products it can be used for. 

https://news.stanford.edu/2022/02/09/turning-carbon-dioxide-gasoline-efficiently/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2023/01/31/united-airlines-green-fuel/11148766002/

https://simpleflying.com/emirates-operates-boeing-777-100-saf-one-engine/

I am aware of it but haven't done much research on it.  I know there are various pilot projects in existence which show a lot of promise it they can be scaled.

It's hard for me to imagine that scale though. I'd need to study the numbers.  

Thanks for the references, I'll check them out. 

[slot canyon 1,333]

Not related directly to the article you referenced (Smithsonian) but regarding methane, I would like to see more private sector efforts such as this: https://www.dominionenergy.com/projects-and-facilities/renewable-natural-gas

[homersapien 11,373]

2 hours ago, slot canyon said:

Not related directly to the article you referenced (Smithsonian) but regarding methane, I would like to see more private sector efforts such as this: https://www.dominionenergy.com/projects-and-facilities/renewable-natural-gas

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome? 😄

Edited February 1, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,373]

17 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Doubt the compact electric tractors are suitable for the farm yet. Golf course maintenance maybe.

Love to have one. Hate hauling diesel fuel!

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I am aware of it but haven't done much research on it.  I know there are various pilot projects in existence which show a lot of promise it they can be scaled.

It's hard for me to imagine that scale though. I'd need to study the numbers.  

Thanks for the references, I'll check them out. 

It has now gone beyond the pilot process. In addition to what the aviation industry is pursuing various motorsports entities such as NASCAR and F1. F1 has prompted manufacturers to invest in the technology. 

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.formula-1-on-course-to-deliver-100-sustainable-fuels-for-2026.1szcnS0ehW3I0HJeelwPam.html

 

[homersapien 11,373]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

I am aware of it but haven't done much research on it.  I know there are various pilot projects in existence which show a lot of promise it they can be scaled.

It's hard for me to imagine that scale though. I'd need to study the numbers.  

Thanks for the references, I'll check them out. 

When I referred to "scale" I was thinking more of the "capturing" technology for CO2 as opposed to what you do with it. The models I have read about basically proposed re-sequestering it in the ground where it came from.  

I haven't spent much time investigating actually using the CO2 collected as a raw material.  It's interesting. 

But as long as there is no net increase of CO2 into the atmosphere, re-using CO2 would serve the purpose of making industries - such as aviation - sustainable, which is a worthy goal.

First step when you find yourself in a deep hole is to stop the digging.

And it gives all those engineers and scientists who are "getting rich" off AGW, just another path to exploit while conning us.

 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

On 1/30/2023 at 2:14 PM, I_M4_AU said:

You are all about whataboutism. One difference, fifty, Trump didn’t advocate to kill the fossil fuel industry and, in fact, got us out of the Paris Climate Agreement.   His administration in not the one being hypocritical.

Yeah, the last thing we need as a species is an official global forum to address a global problem.

Oh yeah, what global problem, right?

And seriously, ...."didn't advocate to kill the fossil fuel industry"?   You mean, like next month or next year?

You people are a hoot.  This country is doomed if we don't break out of this anti truth, anti-science kick so many Americans are on.  There is a reality that supersedes politics, whether one likes it or not.

Edited February 1, 2023 by homersapien