Comments by "hg2" (@hg2.) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
Am I going to impoverish myself by 25% in order to "fight global warming"?
No.
What are the consequences of global warming?
1) A 1-2 degree increase in average temperature: I don't care. I can deal with that by turning down the temperature on the AC thermostat (and I prefer milder winters).
2) A 1.2 inches per decade rise in sea level: again, I don't care becuase:
a) Most people live well enough above that for that to be of any concern to anyone alive today.
b) In 100 years time, this may be a concern for people living on beachfront property, but they are the most wealthy people among us and I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% to preserve their vacation homes. Coastal cities that haven't already built their waterfronts to handle a 1.2 foot rise in sea level have 100 years to deal with the problem.
c) Poor and low lying subsistence agricultural lands have a tough row to hoe, but sea levels have been rising for more than 100 years, and their circumstances would be better improved by moving out of subsistence agriculture and into higher value added (and mobile) occupations.
3) Oceans becoming less basic (currently 8.1 pH; 7.0 is neutral, i.e. tap water): again, I don't care. a) I don't care if clam shells become more fragile at this level of pH. b) I find it preposterous to hear that clams, with billions of years of evolution behind them in a hostile environment (sea water), can't handle a 0.1 decrease in basic ("alkaline", not "acidic") pH -- which is a movement toward neutral, i.e. "fresh" water. [The term "ocean ACIDITY" is used by climate hustlers to incite fear for political and personal gain.]
Have I missed anything? Melting glaciers? Sorry, I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% over receding glaciers.
Sorry, but I don't care. The costs and power grabs behind this issue are astounding. So are the lottery-ticket benefits, unless you are in on the scam: the politicians, enforcers, and renewable energy opportunists.
If you feel so strongly about global warming, you should lobby for THORIUM MOLTEN SALT reactors -- not only for electricity, but for manufacturing synthetic gasoline -- all carbon neutral.
If not already familiar with it, here is a playlist for it:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6JjafE5gsb9nSmudoj5MUKxX8LTKO0-J
5
-
Am I going to impoverish myself by 25% in order to "fight global warming"?
No.
What are the consequences of global warming?
1) A 1-2 degree increase in average temperature: I don't care. I can deal with that by turning down the temperature on the AC thermostat (and I prefer milder winters).
2) A 1.2 inches per decade rise in sea level: again, I don't care becuase:
a) Most people live well enough above that for that to be of any concern to anyone alive today.
b) In 100 years time, this may be a concern for people living on beachfront property, but they are the most wealthy people among us and I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% to preserve their vacation homes. Coastal cities that haven't already built their waterfronts to handle a 1.2 foot rise in sea level have 100 years to deal with the problem.
c) Poor and low lying subsistence agricultural lands have a tough row to hoe, but sea levels have been rising for more than 100 years, and their circumstances would be better improved by moving out of subsistence agriculture and into higher value added (and mobile) occupations.
3) Oceans becoming less basic (currently 8.1 pH; 7.0 is neutral, i.e. tap water): again, I don't care. a) I don't care if clam shells become more fragile at this level of pH. b) I find it preposterous to hear that clams, with billions of years of evolution behind them in a hostile environment (sea water), can't handle a 0.1 decrease in basic ("alkaline", not "acidic") pH -- which is a movement toward neutral, i.e. "fresh" water. [The term "ocean ACIDITY" is used by climate hustlers to incite fear for political and personal gain.]
Have I missed anything? Melting glaciers? Sorry, I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% over receding glaciers.
Sorry, but I don't care. The costs and power grabs behind this issue are astounding. So are the lottery-ticket benefits, unless you are in on the scam: the politicians, enforcers, and renewable energy opportunists.
If you feel so strongly about global warming, you should lobby for THORIUM MOLTEN SALT reactors -- not only for electricity, but for manufacturing synthetic gasoline -- all carbon neutral.
If not already familiar with it, here is a playlist for it:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6JjafE5gsb9nSmudoj5MUKxX8LTKO0-J
4
-
"Renewable Energy" -- a kid's-lemonade-stand business model, "batteries not included".
* * *
I don't care about global warming.
I'm not going to impoverish myself by 25% in order to "fight global warming"?
What are the consequences of global warming?
1) A 1-2 degree increase in average temperature: I don't care. I can deal with that by turning down the temperature on the AC thermostat (and I prefer milder winters).
2) A 1.2 inches per decade rise in sea level: again, I don't care becuase:
a) Most people live well enough above that for that to be of any concern to anyone alive today.
b) In 100 years time, this may be a concern for people living on beachfront property, but they are the most wealthy people among us and I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% to preserve their vacation homes. Coastal cities that haven't already built their waterfronts to handle a 1.2 foot rise in sea level have 100 years to deal with the problem.
c) Poor and low lying subsistence agricultural lands have a tough row to hoe, but sea levels have been rising for more than 100 years, and their circumstances would be better improved by moving out of subsistence agriculture and into higher value added (and mobile) occupations.
3) Oceans becoming less basic (currently 8.1 pH; 7.0 is neutral, i.e. tap water): again, I don't care. a) I don't care if clam shells become more fragile at this level of pH. b) I find it preposterous to hear that clams, with billions of years of evolution behind them in a hostile environment (sea water), can't handle a 0.1 decrease in basic ("alkaline", not "acidic") pH -- which is a movement toward neutral, i.e. "fresh" water. [The term "ocean ACIDITY" is used by climate hustlers to incite fear for political and personal gain.]
Have I missed anything? Melting glaciers? Sorry, I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% over receding glaciers.
Sorry, but I don't care. The costs and power grabs behind this issue are astounding. So are the lottery-ticket benefits, unless you are in on the scam: the politicians, enforcers, and renewable energy opportunists.
If you feel so strongly about global warming, you should lobby for THORIUM MOLTEN SALT REACTORS -- not only for electricity, but for manufacturing synthetic gasoline -- all carbon neutral.
If not already familiar with it, here is a playlist for it:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6JjafE5gsb9nSmudoj5MUKxX8LTKO0-J
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Renewable Energy" -- a kid's-lemonade-stand business model, "batteries not included".
* * *
I don't care about global warming.
I'm not going to impoverish myself by 25% in order to "fight global warming"?
What are the consequences of global warming?
1) A 1-2 degree increase in average temperature: I don't care. I can deal with that by turning down the temperature on the AC thermostat (and I prefer milder winters).
2) A 1.2 inches per decade rise in sea level: again, I don't care becuase:
a) Most people live well enough above that for that to be of any concern to anyone alive today.
b) In 100 years time, this may be a concern for people living on beachfront property, but they are the most wealthy people among us and I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% to preserve their vacation homes. Coastal cities that haven't already built their waterfronts to handle a 1.2 foot rise in sea level have 100 years to deal with the problem.
c) Poor and low lying subsistence agricultural lands have a tough row to hoe, but sea levels have been rising for more than 100 years, and their circumstances would be better improved by moving out of subsistence agriculture and into higher value added (and mobile) occupations.
3) Oceans becoming less basic (currently 8.1 pH; 7.0 is neutral, i.e. tap water): again, I don't care. a) I don't care if clam shells become more fragile at this level of pH. b) I find it preposterous to hear that clams, with billions of years of evolution behind them in a hostile environment (sea water), can't handle a 0.1 decrease in basic ("alkaline", not "acidic") pH -- which is a movement toward neutral, i.e. "fresh" water. [The term "ocean ACIDITY" is used by climate hustlers to incite fear for political and personal gain.]
Have I missed anything? Melting glaciers? Sorry, I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% over receding glaciers.
Sorry, but I don't care. The costs and power grabs behind this issue are astounding. So are the lottery-ticket benefits, unless you are in on the scam: the politicians, enforcers, and renewable energy opportunists.
If you feel so strongly about global warming, you should lobby for THORIUM MOLTEN SALT REACTORS -- not only for electricity, but for manufacturing synthetic gasoline -- all carbon neutral.
If not already familiar with it, here is a playlist for it:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6JjafE5gsb9nSmudoj5MUKxX8LTKO0-J
2
-
2
-
2
-
Am I going to impoverish myself by 25% in order to "fight global warming"?
No.
What are the consequences of global warming?
1) A 1-2 degree increase in average temperature: I don't care. I can deal with that by turning down the temperature on the AC thermostat (and I prefer milder winters).
2) A 1.2 inches per decade rise in sea level: again, I don't care becuase:
a) Most people live well enough above that for that to be of any concern to anyone alive today.
b) In 100 years time, this may be a concern for people living on beachfront property, but they are the most wealthy people among us and I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% to preserve their vacation homes. Coastal cities that haven't already built their waterfronts to handle a 1.2 foot rise in sea level have 100 years to deal with the problem.
c) Poor and low lying subsistence agricultural lands have a tough row to hoe, but sea levels have been rising for more than 100 years, and their circumstances would be better improved by moving out of subsistence agriculture and into higher value added (and mobile) occupations.
3) Oceans becoming less basic (currently 8.1 pH; 7.0 is neutral, i.e. tap water): again, I don't care. a) I don't care if clam shells become more fragile at this level of pH. b) I find it preposterous to hear that clams, with billions of years of evolution behind them in a hostile environment (sea water), can't handle a 0.1 decrease in basic ("alkaline", not "acidic") pH -- which is a movement toward neutral, i.e. "fresh" water. [The term "ocean ACIDITY" is used by climate hustlers to incite fear for political and personal gain.]
Have I missed anything? Melting glaciers? Sorry, I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% over receding glaciers.
Sorry, but I don't care. The costs and power grabs behind this issue are astounding. So are the lottery-ticket benefits, unless you are in on the scam: the politicians, enforcers, and renewable energy opportunists.
If you feel so strongly about global warming, you should lobby for THORIUM MOLTEN SALT reactors -- not only for electricity, but for manufacturing synthetic gasoline -- all carbon neutral.
If not already familiar with it, here is a playlist for it:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6JjafE5gsb9nSmudoj5MUKxX8LTKO0-J
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Am I going to impoverish myself by 25% in order to "fight global warming"?
No.
What are the consequences of global warming?
1) A 1-2 degree increase in average temperature: I don't care. I can deal with that by turning down the temperature on the AC thermostat (and I prefer milder winters).
2) A 1.2 inches per decade rise in sea level: again, I don't care becuase:
a) Most people live well enough above that for that to be of any concern to anyone alive today.
b) In 100 years time, this may be a concern for people living on beachfront property, but they are the most wealthy people among us and I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% to preserve their vacation homes. Coastal cities that haven't already built their waterfronts to handle a 1.2 foot rise in sea level have 100 years to deal with the problem.
c) Poor and low lying subsistence agricultural lands have a tough row to hoe, but sea levels have been rising for more than 100 years, and their circumstances would be better improved by moving out of subsistence agriculture and into higher value added (and mobile) occupations.
3) Oceans becoming less basic (currently 8.1 pH; 7.0 is neutral, i.e. tap water): again, I don't care. a) I don't care if clam shells become more fragile at this level of pH. b) I find it preposterous to hear that clams, with billions of years of evolution behind them in a hostile environment (sea water), can't handle a 0.1 decrease in basic ("alkaline", not "acidic") pH -- which is a movement toward neutral, i.e. "fresh" water. [The term "ocean ACIDITY" is used by climate hustlers to incite fear for political and personal gain.]
Have I missed anything? Melting glaciers? Sorry, I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% over receding glaciers.
Sorry, but I don't care. The costs and power grabs behind this issue are astounding. So are the lottery-ticket benefits, unless you are in on the scam: the politicians, enforcers, and renewable energy opportunists.
If you feel so strongly about global warming, you should lobby for THORIUM MOLTEN SALT reactors -- not only for electricity, but for manufacturing synthetic gasoline -- all carbon neutral.
If not already familiar with it, here is a playlist for it:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6JjafE5gsb9nSmudoj5MUKxX8LTKO0-J
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Am I going to impoverish myself by 25% in order to "fight global warming"?
No.
What are the consequences of global warming?
1) A 1-2 degree increase in average temperature: I don't care. I can deal with that by turning down the temperature on the AC thermostat (and I prefer milder winters).
2) A 1.2 inches per decade rise in sea level: again, I don't care becuase:
a) Most people live well enough above that for that to be of any concern to anyone alive today.
b) In 100 years time, this may be a concern for people living on beachfront property, but they are the most wealthy people among us and I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% to preserve their vacation homes. Coastal cities that haven't already built their waterfronts to handle a 1.2 foot rise in sea level have 100 years to deal with the problem.
c) Poor and low lying subsistence agricultural lands have a tough row to hoe, but sea levels have been rising for more than 100 years, and their circumstances would be better improved by moving out of subsistence agriculture and into higher value added (and mobile) occupations.
3) Oceans becoming less basic (currently 8.1 pH; 7.0 is neutral, i.e. tap water): again, I don't care. a) I don't care if clam shells become more fragile at this level of pH. b) I find it preposterous to hear that clams, with billions of years of evolution behind them in a hostile environment (sea water), can't handle a 0.1 decrease in basic ("alkaline", not "acidic") pH -- which is a movement toward neutral, i.e. "fresh" water. [The term "ocean ACIDITY" is used by climate hustlers to incite fear for political and personal gain.]
Have I missed anything? Melting glaciers? Sorry, I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% over receding glaciers.
Sorry, but I don't care. The costs and power grabs behind this issue are astounding. So are the lottery-ticket benefits, unless you are in on the scam: the politicians, enforcers, and renewable energy opportunists.
If you feel so strongly about global warming, you should lobby for THORIUM MOLTEN SALT reactors -- not only for electricity, but for manufacturing synthetic gasoline -- all carbon neutral.
If not already familiar with it, here is a playlist for it:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6JjafE5gsb9nSmudoj5MUKxX8LTKO0-J
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Am I going to impoverish myself by 25% in order to "fight global warming"?
No.
What are the consequences of global warming?
1) A 1-2 degree increase in average temperature: I don't care. I can deal with that by turning down the temperature on the AC thermostat (and I prefer milder winters).
2) A 1.2 inches per decade rise in sea level: again, I don't care becuase:
a) Most people live well enough above that for that to be of any concern to anyone alive today.
b) In 100 years time, this may be a concern for people living on beachfront property, but they are the most wealthy people among us and I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% to preserve their vacation homes. Coastal cities that haven't already built their waterfronts to handle a 1.2 foot rise in sea level have 100 years to deal with the problem.
c) Poor and low lying subsistence agricultural lands have a tough row to hoe, but sea levels have been rising for more than 100 years, and their circumstances would be better improved by moving out of subsistence agriculture and into higher value added (and mobile) occupations.
3) Oceans becoming less basic (currently 8.1 pH; 7.0 is neutral, i.e. tap water): again, I don't care. a) I don't care if clam shells become more fragile at this level of pH. b) I find it preposterous to hear that clams, with billions of years of evolution behind them in a hostile environment (sea water), can't handle a 0.1 decrease in basic ("alkaline", not "acidic") pH -- which is a movement toward neutral, i.e. "fresh" water. [The term "ocean ACIDITY" is used by climate hustlers to incite fear for political and personal gain.]
Have I missed anything? Melting glaciers? Sorry, I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% over receding glaciers.
Sorry, but I don't care. The costs and power grabs behind this issue are astounding. So are the lottery-ticket benefits, unless you are in on the scam: the politicians, enforcers, and renewable energy opportunists.
If you feel so strongly about global warming, you should lobby for Thorium Molten Salt reactors -- not only for electricity, but for manufacturing synthetic gasoline -- all carbon neutral.
If not already familiar with it, here is a playlist for it:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6JjafE5gsb9nSmudoj5MUKxX8LTKO0-J
2
-
Am I going to impoverish myself by 25% in order to "fight global warming"?
No.
What are the consequences of global warming?
1) A 1-2 degree increase in average temperature: I don't care. I can deal with that by turning down the temperature on the AC thermostat (and I prefer milder winters).
2) A 1.2 inches per decade rise in sea level: again, I don't care becuase:
a) Most people live well enough above that for that to be of any concern to anyone alive today.
b) In 100 years time, this may be a concern for people living on beachfront property, but they are the most wealthy people among us and I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% to preserve their vacation homes. Coastal cities that haven't already built their waterfronts to handle a 1.2 foot rise in sea level have 100 years to deal with the problem.
c) Poor and low lying subsistence agricultural lands have a tough row to hoe, but sea levels have been rising for more than 100 years, and their circumstances would be better improved by moving out of subsistence agriculture and into higher value added (and mobile) occupations.
3) Oceans becoming less basic (currently 8.1 pH; 7.0 is neutral, i.e. tap water): again, I don't care. a) I don't care if clam shells become more fragile at this level of pH. b) I find it preposterous to hear that clams, with billions of years of evolution behind them in a hostile environment (sea water), can't handle a 0.1 decrease in basic ("alkaline", not "acidic") pH -- which is a movement toward neutral, i.e. "fresh" water. [The term "ocean ACIDITY" is used by climate hustlers to incite fear for political and personal gain.]
Have I missed anything? Melting glaciers? Sorry, I'm not impoverishing myself by 25% over receding glaciers.
Sorry, but I don't care. The costs and power grabs behind this issue are astounding. So are the lottery-ticket benefits, unless you are in on the scam: the politicians, enforcers, and renewable energy opportunists.
If you feel so strongly about global warming, you should lobby for THORIUM MOLTEN SALT reactors -- not only for electricity, but for manufacturing synthetic gasoline -- all carbon neutral.
If not already familiar with it, here is a playlist for it:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6JjafE5gsb9nSmudoj5MUKxX8LTKO0-J
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sorry, but I think climate change is crap.
For one, there were several BIG "climate changes" in the mere blink-of-an-eye window of recorded human history. One of them was the Medieval Warm Periods. Was that caused by SUVs?
What's wrong with this picture? Here we have a PhD physicist who has to go back to the books for hour to investigate the science of what these snake-oil climate hustlers are saying (which I'm sure THEY haven't done). What she found was a shaggy dog story that has to go 3 levels deep, and THEN still ends with, "there still a lot of complications in this theory..." And at the end of it, I don't understand this "balance" stuff. Do any of YOU? It the space of two sentences we get "the earth has to get hotter because the stratosphere (beginning at 33,000 feet) got 1-2 degrees colder..." The politics of that are "Now! You peasants! Submit to a 25% reduction in your standard of living and pay up it taxes for trillions of dollars in stupid "green energy" BOONDOGGLES! (Ms. Sabin is German. Germany doesn't have such a good track record in the totality of "green energy" stuff -- either with its performance (see Peter Zeihan), or its making itself dependent on Russian natural gas.) How many of YOU understand this "balance" stuff?
Climate change is 21st century superstition -- any bad weather event is YOUR FAULT because YOU drove that evil ICE.
So is "renewable energy" and "carbon neutrality".... which then becomes an excuse for the stupid boondoggle of "green".
Here is a primer on climate quackery
CO2 is a TRACE GAS - 500 ppm, that's 0.0005 or 0.05%. Trace gases do not control the climate.
Professor Bob Carter PhD on Global Warming:
https://youtu.be/_NW0re9EqE8
Professor Bob Carter on Global Warming Science:
https://youtu.be/DRCISn1KfKQ
https://youtu.be/RTSgsVdKF0Q
1 co2 molecule for every 20 Water Vapor molecules (co2 fraud)
https://youtu.be/o8nvdDXR8ZE
The trivial impact of co2 on greenhouse effect
https://youtu.be/8hgSxTS1g38
The $22 billion climate quack business:
Here's the latest from the IPCC charlatans and their total misunderstanding of the scientific method
https://youtu.be/n6VM41-v2gg
The out-of-the-gate ridiculousness of global warming.
https://youtu.be/jNd0HEvFWLs
https://youtu.be/gXr8kC7KJNE
144 videos on climate quackery:
https://climatediscussionnexus.com/video/
IPCC pressure tactics exposed: A Climategate Backgrounder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_8xd0LCeRQ&list=PL6JjafE5gsb8M02zOJoMRasbZA0865k0R&index=113&t=5s
That stupid Paris climate agreement
https://www.prageru.com/video/the-paris-climate-agreement-wont-change-the-climate/
Trace gases do not have leverage over climate.
CO2 makes up 0.05% of the atmosphere.
CO2 is a trace gas.
The liars at IPCC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_8xd0LCeRQ&t=17s
https://www.quora.com/Which-gases-increase-the-greenhouse-effect-more-than-carbon-dioxide?share=1
"No such thing as too much CO2"
https://youtu.be/sXxktLAsBPo
That stupid Al Gore and the 97% of scientists fraud
https://youtu.be/ewJ6TI8ccAwFt
Stupid Al Gore and Canada's 2001 climate predictions
https://youtu.be/DR6wds_ly2s
CO2 is good.
https://youtu.be/jODIYw_5A40
Truth about CO2
https://youtu.be/WDWEjSDYfxc
The stupid rhetoric of the climate quacks:
https://youtu.be/Yqbn76_IIMY
The objective of climate-quack superstition
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/mexico-city-aztec-tower-of-skulls-discovered-by-archaeologists/ar-BB1bUlqX?ocid=msedgntp
America: how do you make solar "cost effective"? Force up the price of electricity.
Britain: how do you make heat pumps cost effective? Force up the price of gas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhAKMAcmJFg
Minute 22:00 refrigerants disassociate in water, so how can they "cause global warming"?
https://youtu.be/5SpOiHB6VsE
Termites, anyone ? ? ? ?
http://iloveco2.com/termites-emit-ten-times-more-co2-than/
https://preventdisease.com/news/10/071110_terminte_co2.shtml
https://youtu.be/pMH0ksLG1oY
William Happer
https://youtu.be/CA1zUW4uOSw
The mendacious IPCC and the stupid sealevel argument
https://youtu.be/ViY2J3LPgN4
Dozens of climate cycles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZw4DdocxN0
"Renewable energy" is a kids' lemonade stand business model. Why? Because Mommy and Daddy ( the power grid) is always there to provide power when lemonade-renewable doesn't feel like working (i e. when it's nightime or it's cloudy).
[Let's not talk about what happens when the kids' lemonade stand business model is bought into for more than a Saturday afternoon and weather doesn't comply with the business plan, e.g. the Texas winter of 2021.]
Bob Carter on the butchering of the scientific method:
https://youtu.be/eBcIuxigoCM
Naturally occurring CFCs and PCBs:
"Many of these chemicals are identical to highly publicized manmade organochlorines: chlorophenols, chlorinated hydrocarbons, PCBs, CFCs and dioxins."
https://chlorine.americanchemistry.com/Background-Natural-chlorine-You-bet-/
Researchers investigate ‘PCB-like’ chemicals made by Mother Nature
https://www.whoi.edu/news-insights/content/natural-pollutants-in-fish/
Energy Communism
https://tiny.iavian.net/1g49t
Ienesco couldn't write a play this absurd.
https://youtu.be/VmZsSV_k8vs
120 videos on climate quackery
https://climatediscussionnexus.com/video/
Hubris
https://youtu.be/P19ywkobLX8
Stupid Prince Charles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFftQwHUyOg
Rising sea level quackery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViY2J3LPgN4
Sea level
https://youtu.be/WTRlSGKddJE
Matt Ridley and the stupid "sustainability" argument
https://youtu.be/S-nsU_DaIZE
Banker talks about climate quackery
https://youtu.be/5QHCxZt616w
Thomas So we'll on climate quackery
https://youtu.be/1cEWw0Cfg8k
UN plan to tax meat to force eating bugs.
https://youtu.be/op-_4gBoCYs
Christopher Moncton on renewable energy quackery.
https://youtu.be/ZH4m-Cs-u3Y
Dr. Judith Curry
https://youtu.be/YBdmppcfixM
William Happer discusses ozone and climate quackery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGn-6kGoD0c&t=1320
Thomas Sowell
https://youtube.com/shorts/il-9eOwZuFs?feature=share
No climate cause and effect:
https://youtu.be/Cz45fETw078
Climate elites fly private
https://youtube.com/shorts/mBBX4Z2IlfU?feature=share
Stupid rising sea levels.
https://youtu.be/RxRWcygrKUE
The stupid recycling ritual:
https://youtu.be/NLkfpjJoNkA
Stupid HYDROGEN -- another science-project boondoggle for the tax-funded climate quacks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zklo4Z1SqkE&t=10s
* * *
Here's something for the idiots of Renewable Energy:
Sooner or later you greenies are going to need to grow up and learn how economies work. - hint government people understand nothing of economies other than how to rape them.
These G-morons decided "woke' power (power that doesn't really work) was a great idea for them, not us, so they decided to steal some money from some ratepayers in order to pay others to stimulate the growth or power that really doesn't work - ie wind and solar.
In the real world, the one that really works, there is something called supply and demand and these things regulate the price of everything fairly.
Your butcher buys his beef by the side and pays more for it than the meat packing plant did who in turn paid more for steer than it cost the rancher to produce it. Get it so far?
Now when you buy that beefsteak at the butcher's shop he's going to get his markup as well, so you as the end consumer are going to have to pay a lot more for it per pound than the rancher was paid for it.
Next time you want a beefsteak drive out to a ranch and buy your steer on the hoof - then you slaughter it, age it carve it up sell the inedible parts to dogfood processors and the like and eat the rest of it on the cheap - no you want the value that all those who added value to the meat along the whole length of the supply chain don't you? Or do you buy your steaks on the hoof? Or do you expect to pay the ranchers price at your favorite steakhouse as well?
It's that way with electricity too, you cannot expect the power company to buy power back from you at retail rates when they don't even need or want the power. With that business model they will go bankrupt as soon as their investors are wiped out.
If that rancher were to dine out at your favorite steakhouse why not demand that your ignorant politicians make the restaurant buy his on-the-hoof steer from him on demand at the same rate per pound that they charge you for a 16 oz prime rib?
The problem is, as with all government planned economies, sooner or later everyone will want to receive the grift instead of paying for it, when that happens the lights go out - permanently.
The most ignorant feature of all of this is that it is supposed to solve some problem that the grifters dreamed up but that does not actually exist so solar panels and wind turbines only create huge problems, they solve nothing - time to wake up you dizzy Californians.
* * *
..
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1) there is nothing unusual happening with the climate. (Please explain the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period.) The co2 climate quacks can't, so they airbrush it OUT of the record. (”Hide the decline!"; "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."). HENRIK SVENSMARK and others have a cosmic-ray/solar-flares explanation that (when combined with malankovic and volcano/meteors) explains ALL the climate change we observe. Co2 is irrelevant in earth climate.
2) there is nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels. Its problems in high-density areas are trivial to fix and already have been fixed. CO2 is not a pollutant.
3) Climate alarmism is a big-lie superstition supported by tax-bribed liars. (See Climate Discussion Nexus for 100s of videos on climate quackery, deception, and realism.)
4) decarbonization is 21st century pyramid building and human sacrifice.
5) there is NO excuse for expensive electricity. Electricity generation is boring. Just burn coal and scrub the smoke in densely populated areas.
6) the only challenge is manufacturing market quantities of cheap gasoline. South Africa has already done this for decades (Sasol), using coal.
7) Elon Musk: the Laptop Class is in La-La Land.
8) The "greenhouse effect"is a fraud. There's no such thing. The fraud is based on the the interaction between certain specific-wavelength photons and the CO2 molecule IN A VACUUM, i.e., no other molecules are bumping into it. (I.e., what happens with the filament in lightbulb.). But that's not what happens in the atmosphere because the atmosphere is not a vacuum.
See Ott's "New Perspective on Atmosphere Heat Transfer"
See the "Abuse of the Boltzman Black Body Radiation Model"
What happens with photons and CO2 in the atmosphere is as follows:
- the CO2 molecule absorbs a certain specific-wavelength photon,
- it gets kicked up to a higher/unstable energy level,
- it collides with another O2 or N2 molecule (99% of the atmosphere), and the photon's energy is transferred to the O2/N2 molecular as heat, like the rest of the sun's energy we experience as heat.
- the heated O2/N2 molecule joins the atmosphere's heat conveyor to the upper atmosphere and elsewhere. We call that "weather". There's not climatological problem with CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is not a pollutant nor a "greenhouse gas".
* * *
"Renewable energy" is 21st Century pyramid building (besides being a Kid's Lemonade Stand business model). It's ridiculous.
See John Robson's (CDN) "Trouble in the Tropical Troposphere".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1