Comments by "Scott Tovey" (@scotttovey) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
@BlakeBigfoot
"no it's not a lie and there are no degrees that amount to a waste, you just don't understand what the point of obtaining a degree really is or what it tells about the person who earned it. As a manager, I would prefer somebody with a degree in underwater basket weaving and no experience in my field than someone with a high school diploma and some experience."
That tells me that as an employer, you do not deserve the quality workmanship, work ethic, and integrity that comes with a High School Graduate, and some experience.
All that degree tells you about an individual is that the individual with the degree, was willing to spend years of their life, in an educational institution. It tells you nothing of their work ethic, nothing of the quality of their work, and nothing of their integrity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Fossil fuel companies could invest in wind, solar, batteries, hydrogen, nuclear, etc in order to maintain profitability whilst divesting from fossil fuels. "
Wrong.
1) There are too many products that are produced using petroleum, including medicines; to eliminate petroleum fuels.
2) Wind and solar are not profitable. They depend on huge government subsidies that maintain and inflate the prices of those products which further makes them unprofitable as well as not affordable to those with lower incomes.
3) Fossil fuels are also necessary to produce those technologies as solar and wind are too unreliable to utilize on a consistent basis for manufacturing.
4) Hydrogen takes a lot more energy to produce than simply using petroleum fuels.
5) Producing wind and solar energy will produce much more CO2 than simply sticking with what we already have thereby making the situation worse rather than better.
6) The only real answer that environmentalists have is to bankrupt western governments, especially the United States. That is not a solution to the problem.
7) By transitioning to natural gas, the United States has done more in reducing it's carbon footprint than other nations. The total benefit of that reduction was negated by both China and India bringing on what amounted to two additional coal burning plants for every one the United States took off line. The end result was not a reduction in CO2, the end result was an increase in the cost of energy for the United States and a reduction in energy reliability in the United States.
The end result is; I don't care what those scientists say, because they don't have a valid solution to the problem. Their whole modus operandi is to do harm to western nations while at the same time benefiting the enemies of the west. In the United States, this attitude of adhering to the enemies of the United States , giving them aid and comfort; is one of the definitions of treason written within the Constitution of the United States. It is unlawful for US Citizens to seek the benefit of the enemies of the United States which also does harm too the United States. It is unlawful to pursue profit where it is detrimental too the United States.
I don't listen to or honor traitors those that seek to do me or my country harm; I hold them with an extreme amount of contempt.
2
-
@Leo99929
I'm doing multiple posts so as not to freak out YouTube's AI bot.
"1)I have never stated I have a problem with petroleum products in general. I totally agree that there's little to no issue with using them in many instances. I have a problem with burning them, specifically. I don't think we need to, or should. "fossil *FUELS*". "
They are actually not fossil fuels. Nothing fossilized, can transition to petroleum due to the fact that the fossilization transitions an item from being organic, to mineralized and by novices, considered stone.
They are carbon fuels.
Petroleum is developed by a process that turns organic material into oil and natural gas. There is nothing fossil about that process.
"2) Fossil fuels are currently subsidised, too."
The only people that receive subsidies for Petroleum energy, are the poor that cannot afford it. The money goes directly to the poor, not the corporations. The poor then uses that money to pay their gas and electric bill. That is not subsidizing petroleum, it is giving assistance to the poor.
When it comes to green energy on the other hand, the money goes to rich people that are able to afford the cost of solar panels, turbines, and the batteries necessary to store the energy produced through tax write offs.
Tax write offs also go to green energy companies. This is not actually subsidizing green energy, just as the tax write offs for oil companies si not subsidizing petroleum.
These tax write offs subsidize business in general as all businesses have access to those tax wrote offs.
Where actual subsidies exist are the billions of dollars in grants that have been paid directly to green energy companies, some of which that have gone bankrupt after receiving grants.
2
-
@Leo99929
"3) Solar panels have no moving parts. Their warranties are like 15 years and that's only to a reduced capacity where they'll still produce power. Do you mean variability of energy production rate? Yeah, we need maybe nuclear aswell, and/or pumped hydro/hydrogen/batteries."
The problem with that is; the activists are against those forms of cleaner energy as well. That's unreasonableness is a good indication that they are not concerned with the environment. They are more concerned with destroying the stable energy we now have.
Why is it so crucial to have an EV fleet by 2030 or 2035, when it is a well known fact that the electrical grid, can neither produce, nor deliver the amount of electricity that the transition will demand?
Michigan electric companies had to bring gas powered plants back on line because the projected reduction in energy demand that they were basing their decisions on, turned out to be false. Demand has increased as a result of EVs rather than go down.
In regards to the reduction in demand projection is concerned, I have no idea where they got that stupid idea. As population increases, demand does not decrease, it increases, and even though Michigan's population has reduced, that reduction does not necessarily equate to a demand so low that it allows for the turning off of multiple electric plants.
One cannot maintain a stable power grid by using projections based on wish full thinking data. You have to use real time data which will always imply an increasing demand.
2
-
2
-
@Leo99929
"All we need to do is stop digging up carbon sequestered over millions of years and burning it in a tiny fraction of that time. That's it. Nothing more difficult or complex than that."
Really?
Tell a drug addict that all he has to do is stop taking the drug he is addicted too. That's it. Nothing more difficult nor complex than that.
It is in fact more complex and more difficult than that, as the global economy depends on petroleum fuel to run. To heat homes, to provide transportation,
What is being demanded in essence is; that we take an air craft carrier, and do a 180 degree turn in the same way that can be done on a jet ski.
It's not ever going to happen!
When you turn an air crafter carrier, you have to take your time doing so.
To transition the global economy from petroleum fuels to any other form of energy, a proper long term plan must be implemented and followed.
It's going to take 100 years to complete and it is never going to happen in a short 20 years.
"Fossil fuel subsidies accounted for 7.1% of global GDP in 2022. $2 Trillion increase from 2020. Global green energy subsidies were $166 billion. Fossil fuel subsidies are about 42 times green energy subsidies."
No other nation on earth is demanded to commit economic and national suicide in the cause to stop "global warming"?
That renders the subsidies that the US does not provide, and other countries do provide irrelevant.
"If you think the definition of the word "fossil" is at all relevant then we're not talking about the same topic"
You don't defeat lies with lies.
You defeat lies with truth.
That makes the definition of the word relevant.
If they are lying to you about what the fuel is, that is a good indication that they are lying to you about what they claim the fuel is causing.
If you don't correct the lies of the past, and the lies of the present, how are you going to devise a proper, realistic plan based on truth?
Why would people take you as credible given that you are using the wrong terminology?
I don't use every dictionary on the planet, and the one's I do use, do not list fuels within the definitions of fossil.
From Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Fossil
(a.) Dug out of the earth; as, fossil coal; fossil salt.
From English explanatory dictionary (main)
fossil
ˈfɔsl n. & adj. --n. 1 the remains or impression of a (usu. prehistoric) plant or animal hardened in rock (often attrib. : fossil bones; fossil shells). 2 colloq. an antiquated or unchanging person or thing. 3 a word that has become obsolete except in set phrases or forms, e.g. hue in hue and cry. --adj. 1 of or like a fossil. 2 antiquated; out of date. øfossil fuel a natural fuel such as coal or gas formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms. fossil ivory see IVORY. øøfossiliferous adj. fossilize v.tr. & intr. (also ise). fossilization n. [F fossile f. L fossilis f. fodere foss dig]
From WordNet® 3.0 (En-En)
fossil
I
noun
1. someone whose style is out of fashion
• Syn: ↑dodo, ↑fogy, ↑fogey
• Usage Domain: ↑colloquialism
• Hypernyms: ↑oldster, ↑old person, ↑senior citizen, ↑golden ager
2. the remains (or an impression) of a plant or animal that existed in a past geological age and that has been excavated from the soil
• Derivationally related forms: ↑fossilist, ↑fossilize
• Hypernyms: ↑remains
• Hyponyms:
↑fucoid, ↑belemnite, ↑ammonite, ↑ammonoid, ↑index fossil, ↑guide fossil, ↑microfossil, ↑wormcast
II
adjective
characteristic of a fossil
2
-
@le13579
"Well said. All of it."
Thanks.
The sad thing about my point of view;
I told an environmental activist back in 2004 or 2005 that we needed to first transition the auto industry to hybrids so that the platform would already in place should a cleaner energy source come along.
If GM, rather than canceling the Chevy Volt hybrid, expanded that technology to all their makes and models, GM would be so far ahead of the pack that the rest of the industry would have been forced to catch up.
Instead, they cancel the Volt, and went with the dead on arrival plan to push EVs.
Incremental steps get you further faster because they reveal along the way, those little unknowns that must be fixed in order to get to the destination.
All the environmentalists do is constantly advocate for a plan that has already failed and will shortly be put in the grave. Then they claim to be more concerned about the environment than someone like me that devices a plan that has a better chance of success, than the never going to work plan they are pushing.
Also, an incremental plan, does not need government subsidies, because you're not trying to sell people a product they can't afford without the government subsidies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@arnoldmuller1703
"The problem is just when the reveiwers are stupid as heck but think it is you."
The term "common sense" comes to mind.
2 + 2 = 4 is not common sense.
At least not the way most people use the term.
2 + 2 = 4 is educated sense.
You must be taught how to add, before you can add 2 + 2 and get 4.
This is the case with most things that are declared to be common sense.
An individual that grows up on a farm, will have knowledge that an individual crowing up in a city will not have. What is common sense on the farm, is not street sense in the city. The end result is that from both individual's perspective, the other one is stupid and they are both right as well as being both wrong.
Declaring a thing to be common sense is in fact deriding an individual for not being taught something that one believes should be commonly taught or should be commonly known.
All disagreements between people are the result of one of them assuming that the other one has their same exact point of view, perspective and knowledge and therefore; they should know what is meant by what is are said. And then, rather than refining one's communication, one refuses to refine one's communication, and becomes offended by the fact that the other person does not have the exact same point of view.
I was discussing a religious topic with an individual back in my early 20's. There appeared to be a disagreement. Then it occurred to me that we are simply using different terminology to say the same thing. I confirmed what he meant by what he said and he acknowledged his position. Then I said, that's what I am say only with different words. His response was; "No your not".
He absolutely refused to accept the fact that words have synonyms that mean the same thing. A ghost is a spirit, and a spirit is a ghost; yet some people will argue that they are not the same thing. The only way to communicate with idiots like that, is to figure out what their terminology is, and use it rather than the alternative.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Americans are skeptical of client change not because of bad science, but because of the lies and destructive policies of the environmentalist movement that serve no other benefit than the economic destruction of the United States.
Facts:
1) Despite the fact that President Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris climate accords, The United States has reduced it's carbon foot print beyond what the accords required by moving to natural gas.
2) Despite having voluntarily surpassed what the accords required, environmentalists continue to accuse the United States of being the sole guilty party of "climate change" and demanding that the United States adopt energy policies that serve no other benefit than to enrich and empower the enemies of the United States.
3) The United States reducing it's carbon footprint even further serves no useful benefit as both China and India are negating the reductions by bringing more and more coal burning plants on line. And guess who do the environmentalist blame for the lack of reduction in carbon in the atmosphere? The United States.
Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf?
Today, that's the environmentalist movement.
They are demanding that United States adopt energy production policies that have proven to fail not only in the State of Texas, but in other countries like Germany that had transitioned to wind and solar far more than the US has.
When the Texas grid nearly collapsed due to the "once in a 100 years" deep freeze they experienced, people died. A 10 year old boy froze to death while sleeping in his bed.
What it comes down to is this. Every lie told to the American people that is subsequently and proven a lie by real life events; discredits the environmentalist movement and climate change advocates. You can claim science all you want, but if your science does not work in real life and ends up killing people, your science is bad and not to be trusted. That's where the environmentalist movement is right now. Bad science.
Twenty years ago environmentalists could have lobbied Congress to move the US auto fleet over to hybrid autos. If they had done that, all it would take to move autos over to a carbonless fuel source is the development of a drop in replacement technology.
Did they do that?
No, they wasted all their time money and energy pushing policies that do not work when the temperatures drop down to freezing.
Climate change advocates are nothing but disingenuous liars pushing failed tech even after the tech has been prove a failure.
Climate change advocates cannot be take seriously, they have a hate America, destroy America, enslave the world mentality.
So yeah, Americans are skeptical of climate change theories, but then, those theories are coming from people that have proven themselves to be enemies of the United States. That's not being irrational, that's recognizing the end results of all the policies being demanded.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@meganegan5992
"As opposed to 100% from carbon producing heat? 70% from a source that's pretty clean, or 100% from a source that's definitely not. What's the choice?"
Electric power is no cleaner than carbon based fuels as 90% of electricity is produced by using carbon based fuels.
Coal and oil are used to produce the electricity to mine the material needed to build solar panels and turbines.
It's not even close to be relatively clean.
The relatively cleanness of it, is a lie.
The technology is not mature enough to provide the amount of electricity that is in current demand, it will be less so in the future when the demand for electricity doubles because the idiots in charge got rid of oil, gas, coal and all other forms of CO2 producing energy.
It's not possible to transfer from carbon energy to carbon-less energy in a short period of time, and that without a plan.
Give it another 100 to 200 years with an implemented plan that transitions the energy sector to clean energy, and you may have a chance of getting it done. It's only a chance because there is bound to be a group of corrupt, greedy politicians, that will throw a monkey wrench into the well implemented plan to cause it to break. Unless you make such actions a criminal act subject to a charge of treason and punished by death with no alternative punishments.
It's a war, and your life is on the line. The side you are on, is the side of those that want you and your children, if you have any, dead.
Unfortunately, you choose to be blind rather than think on things with real world facts in hand and plan accordingly.
2
-
@MiltonRoe
"That way you phrase that, it's as if activists have the power to augment the electric grid. Wtf are they supposed to do?"
Experts say that we have to double the capacity of the electric grid for it to be able to handle the demands of a full electric fleet of automobiles.
I disagree with their knowledgeable position. I say we have to triple it. Keep something in mind. It is not possible to trible or double the capacity of the electric grid in the short time that activists demand that we be transitioned to full what is not truly green energy.completely
"No one is doing anything because no one will lift a finger unless they make money on it. More demand for electricity will cause private concerns to generate more electricity via supply and demand. There's a logic to it."
This is actually false. Just because there is a higher demand, does not mean there will be a higher supply. In fact, by shutting down coal and natural gas powered electricity plants prematurely, it is impossible for private concerns to generate more electricity.
Under capitalist system, the rich test and implement new technologies over time. They have the discretionary cash flow to do so.
If a person has the money to pay for a $500,000, you have the liberty to choose to do so. The only people that have a problem with that individual, spending their money like that are the envious and greedy cohorts that refuse to find a legal way to earn that kind of money.
When it comes to the so called green energy, the only people that are able to afford the cost of the equipment are those that can pay $500,000 for an automobile. However, rather than spending their own money to purchase that equipment, they get tax write offs and rebates for doing so. That means that the people who cannot afford to purchase that equipment, even with those tax write offs and rebates, are being forced to give their tax dollars to those that do not need those subsidies and can afford that equipment even without those subsidies.
A proper plan does not allow such things to happen. A proper plan takes into consideration the fact that the majority of money spent on solar and wind, goes into China's bank accounts and benefits the CPC, but does not benefit the United States.
The Constitution does not allow these policies to exist constitutionally, because policies that benefit the enemies of the United States above the United States, falls under the second definition of treason in the Constitution which is; Adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort.
The whole environmental activist movement, is levying war against the United States. This is evident by the fact that even though the United States has reduced it's carbon foot print below the levels that would have been expected under the Paris accords, the activists are demanding that the United States reduce its' carbon footprint even more all the while ignoring the fact that both India and China, are reportedly adding a coal burning plant on line every single day to provide for their electrical power needs.
The United States does not have any more capacity in the form of carbon reduction, that it is able to reduce. What is being demanded, is that the American people commit economic and national suicide and destroy themselves to save a world that does not give a damn about the environment.
America is not the greatest polluters on earth, India and China are.
2
-
2
-
@yodaiam1000
"If the lines are not made of copper, why would you need any more copper for the grid?"
Why would the lines not be made of copper?
Copper is currently the best conductor in use.
You're forgetting the copper needed for both wind turbines and solar panels which are said, cannot be made with recycled copper, and must be made with new copper.
"I think you heard wrong. The only extra copper would be for electric car motors and it is recycled. With a car with a 48V system for lights etc., the copper usage actually goes down."
Copper usage would not go down with a 48 volt system. For the same wattage output, thicker cables have to be used in order to deal with the heat that comes from the higher amperage draw that results from a lower voltage to obtain the same performance.
The EV1 had a "312-volt (18.7 kWh, 67.3 MJ) Panasonic lead–acid battery pack" and a "NiMH battery, rated at 77 Ah with 343 volts (26.4 kWh, 95.0 MJ)".
I did a search and found this blurb:
"Many electric vehicle makers are transitioning from 400-volt to 800-volt systems for faster charging and higher efficiency"
https://www.engineering.com/story/high-voltage-vehicles-why-800-volt-evs-are-on-the-rise
The real problem is not going to EVs. The real problem is that the transition to EVs is being pushed by a dictatorial marxist regime rather than allowing the market to bring about the transition naturally.
When a technology is being forced upon the people and then people see that it cannot handle the demands that they put on it, the people stop accepting that technology as valid and acceptable. So rather than benefiting the transition to the technology in the long run, the government's regulation ends up delaying the transition for 20-40 years because people getting stranded on the highway has a greater influence on them than elected officials they can vote out of office.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GeoRust1
"AI can and will solve many of the problems that are associated with its development.
Climate change is happening either way, yet development of AI is our best opportunity for solving the issue among many others.
That being said, this is a terrible truth in the grand scheme of things because the risks of AI/ASI development are boundless and entirely inconceivable."
We don't need AI to solve the problems we have.
We need to keep people like the marxist left, who create more problems than they solve, out of government, out of influence, and out of power.
What is coming in the future with AI is not inconceivable.
It has been known since the Apostle John wrote the prophesy of the book of The Revelation of Jesus Christ.
Whoever owns and controls AI, will most likely turn out to be the beast of Revelation 13, which forces a global market, and digital currency on everyone so that no one can buy or sell accept they take his mark and agree to worship him as god.
Revelation 13:16: And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18: Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
For a period of 42 weeks, the beast will have absolute power, and those that believe in Jesus Christ, and refuse to take his mark, will be sought out and martyred for their faith in the name of Christ.
After that period of 42 weeks, Christ will return and cast the beast into the lake of fire. He will set up His kingdom and reign 1000 years during which there will be no wars.
These things were prophesied around 1935 years ago and are now coming to pass.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think that the idea of motion distorting one's view to the degree that Hakeem Oluseyi illustrated, is as errant as Neo's expression indicates.
While the angular path of light may provide a different perspective of the same object, if two people are at the same point of time and location, their observation of the same object at that instance in time, is going to be the same.
If the observations of the two individuals differ, then it is more likely, that you are not observing the same instance in time, and are observing a different instance in time of the individual that is moving and you will have to pan ahead and back in order to find the exact instance in time that the two individuals were in deed, at the same time and location.
The only way to actually test the theory, is to put three high powered telescopes in close proximity, and have them synchronized to observe the Andromeda galaxy at the exact time. Then compare the images they produce.
The experiment may disprove the paradox altogether.
1
-
1