Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #691048 > unrolled thread

How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-18 09:31 -0400
    Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-18 11:14 -0400
      Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-18 11:39 -0400
        Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-18 12:22 -0400
          Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-06-18 18:28 +0000
            Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-18 19:09 -0400
              Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-06-18 23:31 +0000
                Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-18 19:59 -0400
                  Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-06-19 02:33 +0000
                    Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 23:49 -0700
                      Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-06-20 19:42 +0100
                Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 19:08 -0700
            Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-18 19:51 -0400
        Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 11:41 -0700
          Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-18 15:27 -0400
            Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-06-18 15:56 -0700
          Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-06-18 20:05 +0000
            Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 19:01 -0700
              Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-06-19 02:35 +0000
              Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-19 03:43 +0000
    Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-19 22:37 -0400
      Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-20 12:48 -0400
        Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-20 13:39 -0400
        Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-20 16:34 -0400
        Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-22 23:10 -0400
          Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-06-23 03:34 +0000
            Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-23 08:34 -0400
    Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist "nuny@bid.nes" <alien8752@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 10:58 -0700
      Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-22 17:13 -0400

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#691048 — How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist

Let’s start by assuming climate change is real and that the primary 
cause is fossil fuels, because those two things are true. The question 
is how to stop it. What most of us thought we knew about this is now 
wrong, and that is a very good thing:

https://evonomics.com/how-changing-my-economic-model-made-me-a-climate-change-optimist/

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#691051

On 6/18/2018 9:31 AM, kensi wrote:
> Let’s start by assuming climate change is real and that the primary 
> cause is fossil fuels, because those two things are true. The question 
> is how to stop it. What most of us thought we knew about this is now 
> wrong, and that is a very good thing:
> 
> https://evonomics.com/how-changing-my-economic-model-made-me-a-climate-change-optimist/ 
> 
> 
"Kensi" let's start by assuming you are an anonymous liar and fraudster 
who simply cut and pastes non-scientific journalist fantasies to further 
your socialist energy tax schemes because all those things are TRUE!


The following is also unquestionably true: Civilization runs today, 
post-industrial revolution, on energy. To attempt to cut off that energy 
supply for some pie in the sky reasons will destroy current civilization 
with the most dire of consequences for humanity.

The ONLY long-term solution is the invention of some new viable energy 
source. Historical ideas of dams and windmills and growing tulips are 
either insufficient, use more energy to build them them than they 
produce, or are currently in place and early maxed out like 
Hydroelectric power.

This means that the only hope for civilization is to find ways to keep 
civilization going until that critical discovery of the new energy 
bonanza finally occurs. Time is clearly limited to hundreds of years, 
and clearly dumping millions of tons of combustion products into the air 
we breath is a not something to be encouraged.

This means that if "greens" intend to "save" the planet rather than to 
destroy human civilization, all the emphasis must be placed on 
CONSERVATION and trying to EXTEND the fuels we now have available as 
long as possible with as little damage to the environment as possible 
because no matter what "greens" tell you NOBODY knows then that energy 
breakthrough invention will occur. It is NOT here yet no matter what the 
tax hogs tell you. And at present this means that if there is ANY tax 
money collected it really needs to be going to cleaning up nasty 
pollution and developing clean coal and safe nuclear. That is where 
there is enough energy left to keep us going until the big break-through 
is finally found.

It's really as simple as this. THIS IS TRUTH.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691052

On 6/18/2018 11:14 AM, benj wrote:
> The following is also unquestionably true: Civilization runs today, 
> post-industrial revolution, on energy. To attempt to cut off that energy 
> supply for some pie in the sky reasons will destroy current civilization 
> with the most dire of consequences for humanity.
> 
> The ONLY long-term solution is the invention of some new viable energy 
> source.

If you'd bothered to actually *read* the article you are foaming about, 
you'd know that it *has* been invented. It's called wind and solar power 
with storage, ko0ky.

> clearly dumping millions of tons of combustion products into the air 
> we breath is a not something to be encouraged.

Holy shit, are you ... *learning*? But I thought that was impossible!

> clean coal

Ain't no such thing.

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691061

On 6/18/2018 11:39 AM, kensi wrote:
> On 6/18/2018 11:14 AM, benj wrote:
>> The following is also unquestionably true: Civilization runs today, 
>> post-industrial revolution, on energy. To attempt to cut off that 
>> energy supply for some pie in the sky reasons will destroy current 
>> civilization with the most dire of consequences for humanity.
>>
>> The ONLY long-term solution is the invention of some new viable energy 
>> source.
> 
> If you'd bothered to actually *read* the article you are foaming about, 
> you'd know that it *has* been invented. It's called wind and solar power 
> with storage, ko0ky.

Dear nutjob. If you knew ANY science at all you'd know these green wet 
dreams are EXTREMELY limited in capacity and no solution at all. Pure 
Lib Fantasy! People need to understand that you libs don't do quantity.

>> clearly dumping millions of tons of combustion products into the air 
>> we breath is a not something to be encouraged.
> 
> Holy shit, are you ... *learning*? But I thought that was impossible!

Learning? I've NEVER said that combustion products were some kind of 
"answer"! That boogey man is your drooling babble. You on the other hand 
have a financial agenda so that you will NEVER admit any truth that does 
not support your plans.

>> clean coal
> 
> Ain't no such thing.
> 
Of course as a journalist you know no science, "kensi" and while there 
is no such thing YET as totally clean coal, progress has been good! 
This is why one needs to spend tax money on RESEARCH to find it, not 
ship the money to Third World dictators like you want to do. Grow a brain!

To ignore clean coal is to drastically shorten the amount of time 
civilization has left to invent a real answer to the energy problem. 
Sorry your wind, tulips and solar fantasies are NOT a real answer!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691075

Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 12:22:35 -0400, benj wrote:

> On 6/18/2018 11:39 AM, kensi wrote:
>> On 6/18/2018 11:14 AM, benj wrote:
>>> The following is also unquestionably true: Civilization runs today,
>>> post-industrial revolution, on energy. To attempt to cut off that
>>> energy supply for some pie in the sky reasons will destroy current
>>> civilization with the most dire of consequences for humanity.
>>>
>>> The ONLY long-term solution is the invention of some new viable energy
>>> source.
>> 
>> If you'd bothered to actually *read* the article you are foaming about,
>> you'd know that it *has* been invented. It's called wind and solar
>> power with storage, ko0ky.
> 
> Dear nutjob. If you knew ANY science at all you'd know these green wet
> dreams are EXTREMELY limited in capacity and no solution at all.

Tell that to the citizens in the growing number of countries with 
majority, or even 100%, renewable energy in their power grids, kooky.

-- 
FNVWe Nadegda

Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct
question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691135

On 6/18/2018 2:28 PM, Nadegda wrote:
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 12:22:35 -0400, benj wrote:
> 
>> On 6/18/2018 11:39 AM, kensi wrote:
>>> On 6/18/2018 11:14 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> The following is also unquestionably true: Civilization runs today,
>>>> post-industrial revolution, on energy. To attempt to cut off that
>>>> energy supply for some pie in the sky reasons will destroy current
>>>> civilization with the most dire of consequences for humanity.
>>>>
>>>> The ONLY long-term solution is the invention of some new viable energy
>>>> source.
>>>
>>> If you'd bothered to actually *read* the article you are foaming about,
>>> you'd know that it *has* been invented. It's called wind and solar
>>> power with storage, ko0ky.
>>
>> Dear nutjob. If you knew ANY science at all you'd know these green wet
>> dreams are EXTREMELY limited in capacity and no solution at all.
> 
> Tell that to the citizens in the growing number of countries with
> majority, or even 100%, renewable energy in their power grids, kooky.
> 
Fake subsidized news. Even if there were enough energy that you didn't 
need to cover most of the planet with bird choppers and black panels 
(God knows what THAT would do to the climate!) There still is no 
sufficient battery technology to store enough energy in a cost-efficient 
manner. Baby Nads, admit you are just an "idea man" and have no idea if 
anything is actually practical. For you and the left it's all about 
grabbing money not about keeping civilization going. As virtually all 
the schemes from the socialist left have proved in practice, once again 
it's total nonsense that can't end well.

YOU tell it to the 100% renewable energy countries, Baby Nads. IT will 
be easy because are NONE! You "Kensi" and climate fraudsters just lie 
your asses off! Here's an example of the DISHONESTY of "climate change"


There are NO significant countries with 100% "renewable" power. Sure 
people in Afghanistan charge their cellphones with solar cells, it's 
still a shithole. Costa Rica is 100% "renewable" because it's hydro 
(until there is a "climate change" drought:) Hydro is OLD news counting 
it as part of the "green" thing is totally dishonest. As is calling 
Geothermal power "renewable"! Say who's to say that the now closed 
geothermal plants in Hawaii didn't actually cause the eruption? Maybe 
the Geothermal plants in Iceland are melting the glaciers?

Dealing with lefty criminals like baby Nads is like a house of mirrors. 
Nothing is true and all of it lies. Woe be to anyone to takes their 
advice. They will rob you blind and then then leave you in the ditch 
saying it's your own fault for believing them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691138

Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 19:09:55 -0400, benj wrote:

> On 6/18/2018 2:28 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
>> melt!
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 12:22:35 -0400, benj wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/18/2018 11:39 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>> On 6/18/2018 11:14 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> The following is also unquestionably true: Civilization runs today,
>>>>> post-industrial revolution, on energy. To attempt to cut off that
>>>>> energy supply for some pie in the sky reasons will destroy current
>>>>> civilization with the most dire of consequences for humanity.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ONLY long-term solution is the invention of some new viable
>>>>> energy source.
>>>>
>>>> If you'd bothered to actually *read* the article you are foaming
>>>> about,
>>>> you'd know that it *has* been invented. It's called wind and solar
>>>> power with storage, ko0ky.
>>>
>>> Dear nutjob. If you knew ANY science at all you'd know these green wet
>>> dreams are EXTREMELY limited in capacity and no solution at all.
>> 
>> Tell that to the citizens in the growing number of countries with
>> majority, or even 100%, renewable energy in their power grids, kooky.
>
> Fake subsidized news.

Proof, kook?

> There are NO significant countries with 100% "renewable" power. Sure
> people in Afghanistan charge their cellphones with solar cells, it's
> still a shithole.

Perhaps because you conservatives had the military bomb the everloving 
shit out of it?

> Costa Rica is 100% "renewable" because it's hydro (until there is a
> "climate change" drought:) Hydro is OLD news counting it as part of the
> "green" thing is totally dishonest.

I see you and the No True Scotsman fallacy are already well acquainted. 
Carry on, then.

> As is calling Geothermal power "renewable"!

Of course it is.

> Say who's to say that the now closed geothermal plants in Hawaii didn't
> actually cause the eruption?

https://www.metabunk.org/eruption-of-kilauea-volcano-in-hawaii-%E2%80%93-
conspiracies-and-science.t9700/

Anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. No basis in fact. If anything, the 
subsurface heat removal caused by the plant's operations caused that area 
to be partially spared by the eruption, for a while anyway.

> Maybe the Geothermal plants in Iceland are melting the glaciers?

Don't be ridiculous.

-- 
FNVWe Nadegda

Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct
question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691144

On 6/18/2018 7:31 PM, Nadegda wrote:
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 19:09:55 -0400, benj wrote:
> 
>> On 6/18/2018 2:28 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
>>> melt!
>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 12:22:35 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/18/2018 11:39 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>> On 6/18/2018 11:14 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> The following is also unquestionably true: Civilization runs today,
>>>>>> post-industrial revolution, on energy. To attempt to cut off that
>>>>>> energy supply for some pie in the sky reasons will destroy current
>>>>>> civilization with the most dire of consequences for humanity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ONLY long-term solution is the invention of some new viable
>>>>>> energy source.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you'd bothered to actually *read* the article you are foaming
>>>>> about,
>>>>> you'd know that it *has* been invented. It's called wind and solar
>>>>> power with storage, ko0ky.
>>>>
>>>> Dear nutjob. If you knew ANY science at all you'd know these green wet
>>>> dreams are EXTREMELY limited in capacity and no solution at all.
>>>
>>> Tell that to the citizens in the growing number of countries with
>>> majority, or even 100%, renewable energy in their power grids, kooky.
>>
>> Fake subsidized news.
> 
> Proof, kook?
> 
>> There are NO significant countries with 100% "renewable" power. Sure
>> people in Afghanistan charge their cellphones with solar cells, it's
>> still a shithole.
> 
> Perhaps because you conservatives had the military bomb the everloving
> shit out of it?
> 
>> Costa Rica is 100% "renewable" because it's hydro (until there is a
>> "climate change" drought:) Hydro is OLD news counting it as part of the
>> "green" thing is totally dishonest.
> 
> I see you and the No True Scotsman fallacy are already well acquainted.
> Carry on, then.
> 
>> As is calling Geothermal power "renewable"!
> 
> Of course it is.

And just How do you put the Heat back in the earth? Same way you plan to 
put the oil and coal back I presume. Idiot!

>> Say who's to say that the now closed geothermal plants in Hawaii didn't
>> actually cause the eruption?
> 
> https://www.metabunk.org/eruption-of-kilauea-volcano-in-hawaii-%E2%80%93-
> conspiracies-and-science.t9700/
> 
> Anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. No basis in fact. If anything, the
> subsurface heat removal caused by the plant's operations caused that area
> to be partially spared by the eruption, for a while anyway.

You haven't a clue, kooker. If you cool down one area and have another 
that is hot this can create thermal stresses. Such stresses clearly 
could cause an eruption. Don't you have ANY science education?

Please tell me more about how Jews are behind the Hawaiian eruptions, 
nutjob! Hanson really wants to hear it!


>> Maybe the Geothermal plants in Iceland are melting the glaciers?
> 
> Don't be ridiculous.
> 
Why not? You always are! Why should you have all the fun?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691154

Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 19:59:29 -0400, benj wrote:

> On 6/18/2018 7:31 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
>> melt! On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 19:09:55 -0400, benj wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/18/2018 2:28 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
>>>> melt!
>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 12:22:35 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/18/2018 11:39 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/18/2018 11:14 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> The following is also unquestionably true: Civilization runs
>>>>>>> today,
>>>>>>> post-industrial revolution, on energy. To attempt to cut off that
>>>>>>> energy supply for some pie in the sky reasons will destroy current
>>>>>>> civilization with the most dire of consequences for humanity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ONLY long-term solution is the invention of some new viable
>>>>>>> energy source.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you'd bothered to actually *read* the article you are foaming
>>>>>> about,
>>>>>> you'd know that it *has* been invented. It's called wind and solar
>>>>>> power with storage, ko0ky.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear nutjob. If you knew ANY science at all you'd know these green
>>>>> wet dreams are EXTREMELY limited in capacity and no solution at all.
>>>>
>>>> Tell that to the citizens in the growing number of countries with
>>>> majority, or even 100%, renewable energy in their power grids, kooky.
>>>
>>> Fake subsidized news.
>> 
>> Proof, kook?

<crickets>

>>> There are NO significant countries with 100% "renewable" power. Sure
>>> people in Afghanistan charge their cellphones with solar cells, it's
>>> still a shithole.
>> 
>> Perhaps because you conservatives had the military bomb the everloving
>> shit out of it?

<crickets>

>>> Costa Rica is 100% "renewable" because it's hydro (until there is a
>>> "climate change" drought:) Hydro is OLD news counting it as part of
>>> the "green" thing is totally dishonest.
>> 
>> I see you and the No True Scotsman fallacy are already well acquainted.
>> Carry on, then.

<crickets>

>>> As is calling Geothermal power "renewable"!
>> 
>> Of course it is.
> 
> And just How do you put the Heat back in the earth? Same way you plan to
> put the oil and coal back I presume. Idiot!

Might as well ask how you put the hydrogen back in the sun.

Geothermal and solar both might as well be renewable, on human time scales.

>>> Say who's to say that the now closed geothermal plants in Hawaii
>>> didn't actually cause the eruption?
>> 
>> https://www.metabunk.org/eruption-of-kilauea-volcano-in-hawaii-%E2%80%
93-
>> conspiracies-and-science.t9700/
>> 
>> Anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. No basis in fact. If anything, the
>> subsurface heat removal caused by the plant's operations caused that
>> area to be partially spared by the eruption, for a while anyway.
> 
> You haven't a clue, kooker.

Actually, I do.

> Jews are behind the Hawaiian eruptions, nutjob! Hanson really wants to
> hear it!

...

>>> Maybe the Geothermal plants in Iceland are melting the glaciers?
>> 
>> Don't be ridiculous.
>
> Why not?

On second thought, *do* be ridiculous, and win yourself a few kook awards. 
It will be ever so amusing to your mistress.

-- 
FNVWe Nadegda

Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct
question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691177

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by 
Checkmate!  In article <pg9q1k$4mq$25@dont-email.me>, nad318b404
@gmail.invalid says...


> On second thought, *do* be ridiculous, and win yourself a few kook awards. 
> It will be ever so amusing to your mistress.
> 

The "Ko0k awards" are reserved for the idiots who actually think they're 
a real thing, Ko0k.  Why don't you find a nice group full of other 
programming nerds to infest?

-- 
Checkmate ® 
Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller           
Copyright © 2018 
all rights reserved

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017

"There are many here among us, 
who feel that life is but a joke."

"I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as 
kensi."    -Nadegda  
Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691384

Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <pg9q1k$4mq$25@dont-email.me>, nad318b404
> @gmail.invalid says...
> 
> 
> > On second thought, *do* be ridiculous, and win yourself a few kook awards.
> > It will be ever so amusing to your mistress.
> > 
> 
> The "Ko0k awards" are reserved for the idiots who actually think they're
> a real thing, Ko0k.  Why don't you find a nice group full of other 
> programming nerds to infest?
>

Nerdegda will always be with us, he can't bear to leave.

-- 
^Ï^.           Sn!pe           <snipeco.1@gmail.com>

My pet rock Gordon just is.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691153

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by 
Checkmate!  In article <pg9fbv$4mq$17@dont-email.me>, nad318b404
@gmail.invalid says...


> Subject: Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist
> From: Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid>
> Newsgroups: sci.physics, talk.politics.guns, alt.checkmate
> 
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 19:09:55 -0400, benj wrote:
> 
> > On 6/18/2018 2:28 PM, Nadegda wrote:
> >> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
> >> melt!
> >> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 12:22:35 -0400, benj wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On 6/18/2018 11:39 AM, kensi wrote:
> >>>> On 6/18/2018 11:14 AM, benj wrote:
> >>>>> The following is also unquestionably true: Civilization runs today,
> >>>>> post-industrial revolution, on energy. To attempt to cut off that
> >>>>> energy supply for some pie in the sky reasons will destroy current
> >>>>> civilization with the most dire of consequences for humanity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The ONLY long-term solution is the invention of some new viable
> >>>>> energy source.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you'd bothered to actually *read* the article you are foaming
> >>>> about,
> >>>> you'd know that it *has* been invented. It's called wind and solar
> >>>> power with storage, ko0ky.
> >>>
> >>> Dear nutjob. If you knew ANY science at all you'd know these green wet
> >>> dreams are EXTREMELY limited in capacity and no solution at all.
> >> 
> >> Tell that to the citizens in the growing number of countries with
> >> majority, or even 100%, renewable energy in their power grids, kooky.
> >
> > Fake subsidized news.
> 
> Proof, kook?
> 
> > There are NO significant countries with 100% "renewable" power. Sure
> > people in Afghanistan charge their cellphones with solar cells, it's
> > still a shithole.
> 
> Perhaps because you conservatives had the military bomb the everloving 
> shit out of it?
> 
> > Costa Rica is 100% "renewable" because it's hydro (until there is a
> > "climate change" drought:) Hydro is OLD news counting it as part of the
> > "green" thing is totally dishonest.
> 
> I see you and the No True Scotsman fallacy are already well acquainted. 
> Carry on, then.
> 
> > As is calling Geothermal power "renewable"!
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> > Say who's to say that the now closed geothermal plants in Hawaii didn't
> > actually cause the eruption?
> 
> https://www.metabunk.org/eruption-of-kilauea-volcano-in-hawaii-%E2%80%93-
> conspiracies-and-science.t9700/
> 
> Anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. No basis in fact. If anything, the 
> subsurface heat removal caused by the plant's operations caused that area 
> to be partially spared by the eruption, for a while anyway.
> 

Oh, so now you're a volcanologist and geothermal engineer in addition to 
being an industrial electrician and computer game programmer.  How 
awesome of you.  I'll bet persent doesn't believe you either.

-- 
Checkmate ® 
Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller           
Copyright © 2018 
all rights reserved

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017

"There are many here among us, 
who feel that life is but a joke."

"I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as 
kensi."    -Nadegda  
Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691141

On 6/18/2018 2:28 PM, Nadegda wrote:
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 12:22:35 -0400, benj wrote:
> 
>> On 6/18/2018 11:39 AM, kensi wrote:
>>> On 6/18/2018 11:14 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> The following is also unquestionably true: Civilization runs today,
>>>> post-industrial revolution, on energy. To attempt to cut off that
>>>> energy supply for some pie in the sky reasons will destroy current
>>>> civilization with the most dire of consequences for humanity.
>>>>
>>>> The ONLY long-term solution is the invention of some new viable energy
>>>> source.
>>>
>>> If you'd bothered to actually *read* the article you are foaming about,
>>> you'd know that it *has* been invented. It's called wind and solar
>>> power with storage, ko0ky.
>>
>> Dear nutjob. If you knew ANY science at all you'd know these green wet
>> dreams are EXTREMELY limited in capacity and no solution at all.
> 
> Tell that to the citizens in the growing number of countries with
> majority, or even 100%, renewable energy in their power grids, kooky.
> 
Shit holes that have no energy grid easily achieve 100% with their solar 
cell phone chargers. Kook.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691077

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by 
Checkmate!  In article <pg8jmu$12k7$2@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...


> Subject: Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change Optimist
> From: kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid>
> Newsgroups: sci.physics, talk.politics.guns, alt.checkmate
> 
> On 6/18/2018 11:14 AM, benj wrote:
> > The following is also unquestionably true: Civilization runs today, 
> > post-industrial revolution, on energy. To attempt to cut off that energy 
> > supply for some pie in the sky reasons will destroy current civilization 
> > with the most dire of consequences for humanity.
> > 
> > The ONLY long-term solution is the invention of some new viable energy 
> > source.
> 
> If you'd bothered to actually *read* the article you are foaming about, 
> you'd know that it *has* been invented. It's called wind and solar power 
> with storage, ko0ky.

What the author appeared to be saying, although it was a little tedious 
wading through all the catch phrases and buzzwords that some people have 
gravitated towards using in place of simple English, is that simple 
economic market pressures and rewards are starting to fix the problems... 
NOT by bullshit "carbon taxes" and other means of social engineering 
(force and duress), but simply allowing the natural economic motivators 
like the opportunity to profit by developing such systems be the driving 
force.

I've been telling you all along that human nature is the fly in the 
ointment that ensures that you can't tax or legislate your way out of the 
byproduct of a mature, energy-based economy, because people are motivated 
by profit, and not nebulous promises that if they're only wiling to throw 
the economy into a tailspin, the problem will eventually go away.

If people have a financial incentive to profit by developing new and 
improved methods of producing energy and managing its consumption, THAT 
is the only motivating factor that will bring about the change you seek.  
Human nature and the fact that this over-populated world is locked into 
an energy based economy dictate that no other way has a chance of being 
successful. 

-- 
Checkmate ® 
Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller           
Copyright © 2018 
all rights reserved

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017

"There are many here among us, 
who feel that life is but a joke."

"I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as 
kensi."    -Nadegda  
Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691079

On 6/18/2018 2:41 PM, Checkmate wrote:
> but simply allowing the natural economic motivators
> like the opportunity to profit by developing such systems be the driving
> force.

I like how the economic motivators are forcing people, like rock-ribbed 
christian evangelical southern baptist conservative Texans, to build 
windmills and solar farms to get cheaper electricity to charge up their 
cars and run their air conditioners because the roads are very long and 
it's hot there and people aren't all that rich (except for the oil guys).

-- 
Grizzly H.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691128

x-no-archive: yes

On 6/18/2018 12:27 PM, mixed nuts wrote:
> On 6/18/2018 2:41 PM, Checkmate wrote:
>> but simply allowing the natural economic motivators
>> like the opportunity to profit by developing such systems be the driving
>> force.
> 
> I like how the economic motivators are forcing people, like rock-ribbed 
> christian evangelical southern baptist conservative Texans, to build 
> windmills and solar farms to get cheaper electricity to charge up their 
> cars and run their air conditioners because the roads are very long and 
> it's hot there and people aren't all that rich (except for the oil guys).

Simple Google search, I knew I'd hit it right away, lol.

https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/11/how-climate-change-is-racist/

Everybody racist!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691090

Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:41:13 -0700, Checkmate wrote:

> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
> Checkmate!  In article <pg8jmu$12k7$2@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01
> @gmail.nospam.invalid says...
> 
> 
>> Subject: Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change
>> Optimist From: kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid>
>> Newsgroups: sci.physics, talk.politics.guns, alt.checkmate
>> 
>> On 6/18/2018 11:14 AM, benj wrote:
>> > The following is also unquestionably true: Civilization runs today,
>> > post-industrial revolution, on energy. To attempt to cut off that
>> > energy supply for some pie in the sky reasons will destroy current
>> > civilization with the most dire of consequences for humanity.
>> > 
>> > The ONLY long-term solution is the invention of some new viable
>> > energy source.
>> 
>> If you'd bothered to actually *read* the article you are foaming about,
>> you'd know that it *has* been invented. It's called wind and solar
>> power with storage, ko0ky.
> 
> What the author appeared to be saying, although it was a little tedious
> wading through all the catch phrases and buzzwords that some people have
> gravitated towards using in place of simple English, is that simple
> economic market pressures and rewards are starting to fix the
> problems...
> NOT by bullshit "carbon taxes" and other means of social engineering
> (force and duress), but simply allowing the natural economic motivators
> like the opportunity to profit by developing such systems be the driving
> force.

No; and take this from someone who also read the article kensi linked to. 
Specific public investments were used in the more successful countries to 
get green energy technologies to commercial viability, from basic research 
to subsidies in the green tech sector and other market interventions. 
Countries with a largely unfettered free market are behind the curve 
compared to ones whose governments had specific policies to promote and 
accelerate the green transition.

There is no way to spin that article as favoring a libertarian laissez-
faire conservative minimal-government approach. It just indicates that 
green public investment in research and development has proved superior to 
cap-and-trade in achieving emissions reductions.

-- 
FNVWe Nadegda

Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct
question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691152

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by 
Checkmate!  In article <pg939g$4mq$3@dont-email.me>, nad318b404
@gmail.invalid says...


> 
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:41:13 -0700, Checkmate wrote:
> 
> > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
> > Checkmate!  In article <pg8jmu$12k7$2@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01
> > @gmail.nospam.invalid says...
> > 
> > 
> >> Subject: Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change
> >> Optimist From: kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid>
> >> Newsgroups: sci.physics, talk.politics.guns, alt.checkmate
> >> 
> >> On 6/18/2018 11:14 AM, benj wrote:
> >> > The following is also unquestionably true: Civilization runs today,
> >> > post-industrial revolution, on energy. To attempt to cut off that
> >> > energy supply for some pie in the sky reasons will destroy current
> >> > civilization with the most dire of consequences for humanity.
> >> > 
> >> > The ONLY long-term solution is the invention of some new viable
> >> > energy source.
> >> 
> >> If you'd bothered to actually *read* the article you are foaming about,
> >> you'd know that it *has* been invented. It's called wind and solar
> >> power with storage, ko0ky.
> > 
> > What the author appeared to be saying, although it was a little tedious
> > wading through all the catch phrases and buzzwords that some people have
> > gravitated towards using in place of simple English, is that simple
> > economic market pressures and rewards are starting to fix the
> > problems...
> > NOT by bullshit "carbon taxes" and other means of social engineering
> > (force and duress), but simply allowing the natural economic motivators
> > like the opportunity to profit by developing such systems be the driving
> > force.
> 
> No; and take this from someone who also read the article kensi linked to. 
> Specific public investments were used in the more successful countries to 
> get green energy technologies to commercial viability, from basic research 
> to subsidies in the green tech sector and other market interventions. 
> Countries with a largely unfettered free market are behind the curve 
> compared to ones whose governments had specific policies to promote and 
> accelerate the green transition.
> 
> There is no way to spin that article as favoring a libertarian laissez-
> faire conservative minimal-government approach. It just indicates that 
> green public investment in research and development has proved superior to 
> cap-and-trade in achieving emissions reductions.

A kick start from the Government always helps, but either way, as the 
technology becomes more viable and profitable, the effect spreads.  It 
would be nice if our Government provided carrot incentives instead of 
stick incentives.  I didn't see much evidence of O'Bummer taking that 
approach.

-- 
Checkmate ® 
Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller           
Copyright © 2018 
all rights reserved

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017

"There are many here among us, 
who feel that life is but a joke."

"I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as 
kensi."    -Nadegda  
Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691155

Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 19:01:05 -0700, Checkmate wrote:

> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
> Checkmate!  In article <pg939g$4mq$3@dont-email.me>, nad318b404
> @gmail.invalid says...
> 
> 
> 
>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
>> melt! On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:41:13 -0700, Checkmate wrote:
>> 
>> > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts
>> > by Checkmate!  In article <pg8jmu$12k7$2@gioia.aioe.org>,
>> > kkensington01 @gmail.nospam.invalid says...
>> > 
>> > 
>> >> Subject: Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change
>> >> Optimist From: kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid>
>> >> Newsgroups: sci.physics, talk.politics.guns, alt.checkmate
>> >> 
>> >> On 6/18/2018 11:14 AM, benj wrote:
>> >> > The following is also unquestionably true: Civilization runs
>> >> > today,
>> >> > post-industrial revolution, on energy. To attempt to cut off that
>> >> > energy supply for some pie in the sky reasons will destroy current
>> >> > civilization with the most dire of consequences for humanity.
>> >> > 
>> >> > The ONLY long-term solution is the invention of some new viable
>> >> > energy source.
>> >> 
>> >> If you'd bothered to actually *read* the article you are foaming
>> >> about,
>> >> you'd know that it *has* been invented. It's called wind and solar
>> >> power with storage, ko0ky.
>> > 
>> > What the author appeared to be saying, although it was a little
>> > tedious wading through all the catch phrases and buzzwords that some
>> > people have gravitated towards using in place of simple English, is
>> > that simple economic market pressures and rewards are starting to fix
>> > the problems...
>> > NOT by bullshit "carbon taxes" and other means of social engineering
>> > (force and duress), but simply allowing the natural economic
>> > motivators like the opportunity to profit by developing such systems
>> > be the driving force.
>> 
>> No; and take this from someone who also read the article kensi linked
>> to. Specific public investments were used in the more successful
>> countries to get green energy technologies to commercial viability,
>> from basic research to subsidies in the green tech sector and other
>> market interventions. Countries with a largely unfettered free market
>> are behind the curve compared to ones whose governments had specific
>> policies to promote and accelerate the green transition.
>> 
>> There is no way to spin that article as favoring a libertarian laissez-
>> faire conservative minimal-government approach. It just indicates that
>> green public investment in research and development has proved superior
>> to cap-and-trade in achieving emissions reductions.
> 
> A kick start from the Government always helps, but either way, as the
> technology becomes more viable and profitable, the effect spreads.  It
> would be nice if our Government provided carrot incentives instead of
> stick incentives.  I didn't see much evidence of O'Bummer taking that
> approach.

He did both. Green tech subsidies and signing on with the Paris Accord.

-- 
FNVWe Nadegda

Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct
question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691167

On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 19:01:05 -0700, Checkmate wrote:

> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
> Checkmate!  In article <pg939g$4mq$3@dont-email.me>, nad318b404
> @gmail.invalid says...
> 
> 
> 
>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
>> melt! On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:41:13 -0700, Checkmate wrote:
>> 
>> > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts
>> > by Checkmate!  In article <pg8jmu$12k7$2@gioia.aioe.org>,
>> > kkensington01 @gmail.nospam.invalid says...
>> > 
>> > 
>> >> Subject: Re: How Changing My Economic Model Made Me a Climate Change
>> >> Optimist From: kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid>
>> >> Newsgroups: sci.physics, talk.politics.guns, alt.checkmate
>> >> 
>> >> On 6/18/2018 11:14 AM, benj wrote:
>> >> > The following is also unquestionably true: Civilization runs
>> >> > today,
>> >> > post-industrial revolution, on energy. To attempt to cut off that
>> >> > energy supply for some pie in the sky reasons will destroy current
>> >> > civilization with the most dire of consequences for humanity.
>> >> > 
>> >> > The ONLY long-term solution is the invention of some new viable
>> >> > energy source.
>> >> 
>> >> If you'd bothered to actually *read* the article you are foaming
>> >> about,
>> >> you'd know that it *has* been invented. It's called wind and solar
>> >> power with storage, ko0ky.
>> > 
>> > What the author appeared to be saying, although it was a little
>> > tedious wading through all the catch phrases and buzzwords that some
>> > people have gravitated towards using in place of simple English, is
>> > that simple economic market pressures and rewards are starting to fix
>> > the problems...
>> > NOT by bullshit "carbon taxes" and other means of social engineering
>> > (force and duress), but simply allowing the natural economic
>> > motivators like the opportunity to profit by developing such systems
>> > be the driving force.
>> 
>> No; and take this from someone who also read the article kensi linked
>> to. Specific public investments were used in the more successful
>> countries to get green energy technologies to commercial viability,
>> from basic research to subsidies in the green tech sector and other
>> market interventions. Countries with a largely unfettered free market
>> are behind the curve compared to ones whose governments had specific
>> policies to promote and accelerate the green transition.
>> 
>> There is no way to spin that article as favoring a libertarian laissez-
>> faire conservative minimal-government approach. It just indicates that
>> green public investment in research and development has proved superior
>> to cap-and-trade in achieving emissions reductions.
> 
> A kick start from the Government always helps, but either way, as the
> technology becomes more viable and profitable, the effect spreads.  It
> would be nice if our Government provided carrot incentives instead of
> stick incentives.  I didn't see much evidence of O'Bummer taking that
> approach.

Something else you may want to consider (regarding the "stick") is that 
use of legacy fossil fuels tend to socialize the costs of dealing with 
their pollution.  If those costs were figured in to the price of these 
legacy fuels, then the economic pressures you are referring to would be 
that much more "fair".

As an extreme example of the socialized costs of pollution, consider the 
aftermath of this gold mine:

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM

-- 
-v

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web