Comments by "" (@NinjaKittyBonks) on "" video.
-
29
-
@NathanMustain ... Agreed. I don't think there is anyone who likes the idea of burning things for energy. Nobody likes the smoke, the smell, the soot or the idea that it all goes up into the air and, at some point, either comes back down again or in some other way harms the environment.
.
One of the beautiful things about living in a capitalism based society is that great ideas are rewarded and therefore people WANT to create something good. Solar, wind, hydro are all wonderful sources of energy, but EACH comes at a cost. Solar is great, but generation is limited to daylight and storage is a HUGE factor. By the time we have enough batteries to store all of that energy, we have to put them all over National Parks and THEN run power lines to metro areas. Same goes for wind and hydro.
.
Unquestionably the most reliable, time tested source of energy is nuclear, but the horror stories we have and the potential that would ALWAYS exist... make that a VERY difficult thing to accept.
.
Biden admin and Regressives seem to think if we just eliminate fossil fuels from production, we will just magically all drive electric cars. There are about a thousand problems with their thinking and my PC would run out of ink, before I was to finish listing them all in this comment :)
3
-
3
-
@NathanMustain ... Not sure I am following your middle paragraph there :(
.
Yes, some parts of this world have VERY limited sources of energy and mostly due to the corruption of those that run their country. Look at Venezuela, for example. They have lots of natural resources, but the ruler is oppressive and I think US is considering importing oil from there, because Biden shut down the pipeline and declared war on the oil industry.
.
We also must keep in mind, the amount of time we have been able to "measure" changes in the climate. This world has been around for what... 4.5B years ago and we have been taking accurate measurements for maybe 200 years. There are areas of Greenland or Iceland, forget which, that have layers of frozen / thaw / frozen / thaw depths, that show very large temp swings for millennia.
.
I think it is fair to say that burning fossil fuels is certainly not a positive and even a bad thing and even if not... fossil fuels cannot last forever. The problem, as I see it is the climate catastrophe crowd has been at this for so long, they have gotten incredibly entrenched in planet doom, they simply will NOT entertain any conversation that does not begin with the premise that we are going to destroy earth in the next decade.
.
Every time the goal posts are moved back another 10 years, those of us who remember that it was ALL going to end over 20 year ago... they lose more ground. The extremists are driving this conversation and so we can never make any headway to address it :(
2
-
2
-
@wheel-man5319 ... You are right, we have not had accurate measuring for that long (relatively speaking). What we DO know, is that in Greenland, there are layers of ice that we can drill into and see the "frozen" time over thousands of years. We can see "freeze... thaw... freeze.. thaw". The earth HAS gotten warmer / cooler over time, but is cyclical. There is nobody in any great number saying that we should just pour garbage into our atmosphere, but is the extremes of how to address it. The truth is that solar, wind and hydro will NEVER in a million years, provide the energy for the populations we have on earth and underdeveloped countries rely solely on fossil fuels. China and India are MASSIVE producers and we breath the same air. Take USA out of the equation and barely makes a blip in the carbon foot print of earth, but if China, India and others won't comply, and they won't, we will not begin to make a dent. If the entire world is not on board, we cannot really clean up as the Greta's say we must.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@NathanMustain ... I think you and I are in high agreement, but think we are both missing each other a bit, but that's OK :)
.
Yes.. the climate has changed, but for those early civilizations, it was not due to what is being pushed for the last 60 years. There was no industrialized countries burning fossil fuels driving people to move, so we must accept them moving for other reasons. The only way to point to "climate change" as a legit reason people migrated, would be over many, many years. We cannot count a volcano erupting that destroyed an entire civilization.. People also migrate because they get sick of the harsh weather, population getting crowded or just want the adventure of moving to a new area that news has spread their way.
.
The climate change we hear from Greta, AOC and prominent Democrats today, is all about blaming humans for these changes that they are concluding were CAUSED by those humans. That is to say, they are looking at recorded temperatures from a given area of 5 years ago and extrapolating the most drastic differences into a projection of 100 years. This assumes that the 5 degree difference they see WILL project out 20x over that 100 years.
.
It is the doom's day approach that loses the overwhelming vast majority of people. Hyperbole will only work for so long and we continue to pass right by the "end of the world" deadlines.
.
Look... I would like to find alternate solutions to burning things, but we must find, develop and test for some reasonable period of time, before implement a true alternative fuel.
.
Right now, nuclear has everything we could ever hope to find, as far as production is concerned... were it not for the processing of waste matter and that little issue of animal or human mutations :(
1