Climate change seen as top threat, but U.S. power a growing worry - poll

[RickBradford]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So give us a comparison between the environmental impacts of windmills/solar energy and any fosil

fuel of your choosing.

There are hundreds of articles on that subject online. I suggest you look them up, I am not your personal research assistant.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

There are hundreds of articles on that subject online. I suggest you look them up, I am not your personal research assistant.

You make a statement you can’t back up and now it’s my responsibility to do that for you.

[RickBradford]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

You make a statement you can’t back up and now it’s my responsibility to do that for you.

The only statement I have made is that solar panels and windmills have environmental costs. Only an idiot would deny that.

 

If you want to challenge that, go ahead. But don't expect me to do it for you.

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, yogi100 said:

What have I said that's 'racist'

 

Just because something is a fact does not mean it's 'racist' even if it does not fit in with a multicultural agenda.

 

And if you're so familiar with London why call yourself johnnybangkok, you should call yourself Johnny London.

 

What baby boomers do you know that have sad and pathetic lives. I dunno any.

Your post started with the statement “The late 1940s, 50s, 60s and early 70s until the effects of mass immigration began to take effect“. 

You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that you are blaming all your perceived woes on “mass immigration “

That’s racist. 

I call myself JohnnyBangkok because I now live in Bangkok ......duh. I still have an apartment in London but have lived here for 9 years. 

And I know soooo many baby boomers who have sad and pathetic lives. They just want to hark back to an era that was never that great unless you were white and middle/upper class. The facts do not bear out your or their argument but you just want to moan, moan, moan about “we didn’t have to lock our doors, and back in my day things were sooo much better ‘cos everyone loved each other blah, blah, blah. Talk about rose tinted glasses. 

I for one can’t wait until you lot move aside and let progressive, forward thinking individuals take the lead on everything that really matters, because you lot are to blame for much of the animosity that now engulfs the West. From Trump to Brexit, you have a lot to answer for with your selfish, myopic, racist, fact less view of the world. 

Word of advice; if you can’t be part of the solution at least stop being part of the problem. 

 

[kannot]

On 2/11/2019 at 3:45 PM, farcanell said:

Correct... the USA did not start two massive world wars, but then, neither did almost every other country on the planet.

 

and correct, the US did help clean up, along with a large number of other countries.... they (USA) just turned up much much later than everyone else..... after being attacked.... so turning up to “clean up” was not from some place of good intent, but as a factor of self preservation.

Russia  did the clearing up in ww2

[Lacessit]

On 2/11/2019 at 9:18 AM, TopDeadSenter said:

Finally. The truth is laid bare. Irrefutable proof that the MAGA movement under the greatest US President ever Donald Trump has indeed made America more powerful. Just like it said on the box. How much more powerful? Almost double. What an amazing achievement. 

 And it is not lost on me, but what was once called "Global warming" is now called "climate change" after the theory of global warming was well and truly debunked. Can't believe so many are blind to this.

'

I cannot believe there are people who still peddle this crap. The Larsen Ice shelf and Greenland Ice Cap are melting at unprecedented rates. The flow of water from the Tibetan plateau glaciers will be halved by 2050, affecting millions who depend on major rivers like the Ganges and Mekong. We continue to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as if the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been suspended.

Not that I expect you to understand this, as you are depriving a village somewhere.

Top Dead Senter? More like Lowest Common Denominator.

[Krataiboy]

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I cannot believe there are people who still peddle this crap. The Larsen Ice shelf and Greenland Ice Cap are melting at unprecedented rates. The flow of water from the Tibetan plateau glaciers will be halved by 2050, affecting millions who depend on major rivers like the Ganges and Mekong. We continue to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as if the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been suspended.

Not that I expect you to understand this, as you are depriving a village somewhere.

Can't help thinking most of us are coming at this "problem" from the wrong perspective. Rather than try to explain, I'll let these guys do it for me. Well worth a listen, whichever side of the climate change/global warming fence you are on - and even if you sitting astride it as a lot of us clearly are.

 

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, mikebike said:

Home HVAC: heat pumps, solar, wind all work great.

 

Cars: electric, duh.

 

Cargo ships: nuclear subs are a hint.

 

Airplanes: electric works for short hauls. For intercontinental some innovation is required.

 

You seem to forget the paradigm shift from horses and coal to petro-fuels... it isn't as though we haven't done this before...

 

Any more dumb questions?

Good luck powering and HVAC, heat pump or even a kitshen oven via solar or wind power. Solar doesn't work at night and the wind doesn't blow all the time. Neither are effective for high BTU situations.

Electric cars are great if you only travel less than about 150 km a day (not good for a Buriram to Bangkok 380 km trip (let alone a round trip). Also what king of fuel do you think produce the electricity to charge an electric car? Hint, it is not solar or wind power.

Nuclear powered cargo ships were tried in the 1960-70's (I think the name of the ship was the NS Savanna and a couple of ice breakers). The problem is a very limited number of ports capable of accommodating nuclear powered ships (and many countries want nothing to do with any nuclear powered ships.

Airplanes check, no solution non fossil fuel solution in sight.

 

The shift from horsed to coal to petro fuels occurred when more efficient fuels were viable which is definitely NOT what we are talking about in this situation. The eco warriors are attempting to put the cart before the horse. Plenty more "dumb questions" until common sense and viable solutions are proposed by the greens. 

 

Nuclear power is the solution to many of these issues (not all), but unfortunately this only reliable source of non-fossil fuel electricity (besides hydro-electric) is not in favor with the left. There are also serious environmental issues with hydro-electric powered (endangered fish, and other species).

[Ahab]

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I take it you've missed noticing the fact renewable energies have created jobs.

 

But then perhaps you did notice but only wish to emphasise the anti-Green views you've been feeding on. 

I would love for the fossil fuel alternatives to be viable and effective, they are not at that point yet.

[Lacessit]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I would love for the fossil fuel alternatives to be viable and effective, they are not at that point yet.

In Australia, power companies are shitting themselves because solar and wind power are fast making their gold-plated infrastructure obsolete. Now they have to explain to their shareholders why they have screwed up so badly, while fighting a rearguard action.

Of course, Australia does get a lot of wind and sunshine.

[Lacessit]

21 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Can't help thinking most of us are coming at this "problem" from the wrong perspective. Rather than try to explain, I'll let these guys do it for me. Well worth a listen, whichever side of the climate change/global warming fence you are on - and even if you sitting astride it as a lot of us clearly are.

 

These guys are talking about defects in modelling. They're right. However, the only part of my post which is a model is the Tibetan Plateau. The Larsen Ice Shelf and Greenland Ice Cap are facts happening NOW.

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

 In Australia, power companies are shitting themselves because solar and wind power are fast making their gold-plated infrastructure obsolete. Now they have to explain to their shareholders why they have screwed up so badly, while fighting a rearguard action.

Of course, Australia does get a lot of wind and sunshine.

And black/brown outs of the electrical grid. Solar and wind are great but require a backup supply (fossil fuel, hydro, or nuclear) to fill in when the supply from renewable sources is not available/reliable.

[Lacessit]

33 minutes ago, Ahab said:

And black/brown outs of the electrical grid. Solar and wind are great but require a backup supply (fossil fuel, hydro, or nuclear) to fill in when the supply from renewable sources is not available/reliable.

The black/brown outs are caused by imperfect marketing of excess energy between the states. It's not a matter of insufficient generation.

Eventually, battery storage by individual households will push the power companies into hiking prices to consumers who can least afford it. Plus the fact we export gas that should be kept in Australia to meet our own demand. Meanwhile, idiots like Morrison wave a lump of coal around in Parliament.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I think Wilco pops was being facetious.

 

I’m only surprised you missed it.

It's normal when posting "humour" to indicate that it is so, like a smiley, or a LOL etc.

There are so many humourless posters that unless indicated otherwise, I assume that people post what they mean.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So give us a comparison between the environmental impacts of windmills/solar energy and any fosil

fuel of your choosing.

Windmills kill large numbers of birds, or so I've been informed, and I have no reason to doubt that they do. They are also visually unpleasant and many don't like them where they live ( but they still want electricity ).

Solar has been around for decades. If it was so great it'd be more common than it is. I'd like to see governments mandate solar on every new roof, but seems there are reasons not to.

The two real alternatives are wave and nuclear. Wave power seems to be a non starter and nuclear is unpopular for many reasons, some of which are irrational. France has been using nuclear for decades, quite safely.

However, the biggest user of fossil fuels is transportation, and till an alternative can work as efficiently as a fossil fuelled vehicle without costing any more it's not going to happen.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

And I know soooo many baby boomers who have sad and pathetic lives. They just want to hark back to an era that was never that great unless you were white and middle/upper class. The facts do not bear out your or their argument but you just want to moan, moan, moan about “we didn’t have to lock our doors, and back in my day things were sooo much better ‘cos everyone loved each other blah, blah, blah. Talk about rose tinted glasses. 

You seem to overlook ( ? intentionally ) that their lives WERE better. Just because it was <deleted> for some other ethnicities/ classes does not change that.

I could go on for hours how life was better then ( for me ), and why modern life sucks, but what would be the point?

BTW, life is still <deleted> for most people on the planet.

 

everyone loved each other

LOL. They didn't at all. Some people were really horrible and nasty, but that hasn't changed an iota. Some people are still horrible and nasty.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, kannot said:

Russia  did the clearing up in ww2

Seriously? They defeated Germany, but far from "clearing up", went on to cause world wide chaos and disaster. Their environmental record is appalling.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I cannot believe there are people who still peddle this crap. The Larsen Ice shelf and Greenland Ice Cap are melting at unprecedented rates. The flow of water from the Tibetan plateau glaciers will be halved by 2050, affecting millions who depend on major rivers like the Ganges and Mekong. We continue to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as if the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been suspended.

Not that I expect you to understand this, as you are depriving a village somewhere.

Top Dead Senter? More like Lowest Common Denominator.

Every species that ever existed is exterminated if it can't adapt to environmental changes. What makes anyone think humanity is different?

If humans have overpopulated themselves to the point there isn't enough water, who is to blame, humans or nature? If we continue to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as if the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been suspended who is to blame, humans or nature? 

If anyone in power actually cared, they'd be doing something realistic about it, but all they do is garbage like banning plastic bags in supermarkets, ignoring that almost every thing in the supermarket is wrapped in plastic.

I doubt if many understand this as they continue to reproduce at a rate that can only cause disaster, IMO.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, Lacessit said:

These guys are talking about defects in modelling. They're right. However, the only part of my post which is a model is the Tibetan Plateau. The Larsen Ice Shelf and Greenland Ice Cap are facts happening NOW.

They ain't facts till they happen. The rate of melting or whatever may be increasing, but that doesn't mean they WILL collapse.

In the meantime, have you noticed governments doing anything to prepare for a possible sea level rise? Where I live they are doing ZERO, and still allowing houses to be built where they will be awash if it happens.

That leads to the question- do governments know that it's not going to happen, or are they just completely and utterly incompetent?

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, stevenl said:

Sometimes impopular measures are necessary for the general good. It is not all about approval ratings.

Doing unpopular stuff gets governments sacked at elections. Unless one is advocating world dictatorship nothing is going to change. At a wild guess, most politicians care more about getting re elected than they do about the "general good". Certainly, the government where I live doesn't do much for the "general good" of anyone other than rich people.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Your opinion that nothing can be done about climate change is also in direct contradiction to the scientific consensus.

 

On a wide range of environment topics you consistently post arguments against tackling environmental damage; views on climate change that contradict the scientific consensus being an example.

 

So let me ask you:

 

Taking action to reduce pollution, protect the environment, protect wild life and wild life habitats.

 

These are the core of environmentalism.

 

What is your argument against taking these actions?

Obviously you know less about me than you think you do.

I have often advocated on TVF for "Taking action to reduce pollution, protect the environment, protect wild life and wild life habitats."

 

Your opinion that nothing can be done about climate change is also in direct contradiction to the scientific consensus.

Sooooo, why is nothing being done that would ACTUALLY mitigate climate change? Fossil fuelled cars are sold by the millions and governments everywhere are looking to INCREASE air travel. Unless they actually DO SOMETHING, it's all just waffle and hot air. I do not classify putting up more windmills as a realistic solution when the amount of electric powered objects is increasing at a rate that exceeds the ability of air or solar to power.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, stevenl said:

No, my statement turns out exactly as it should be and has been for a long time: the elected politicians do their job and ignore the approval ratings

and which politicians do you know that would ignore approval ratings? I know of none.

 

Even if one such were to emerge from the political swamp, they'd be gone at the next election, if the voters didn't like what they did.

Churchill saved the free world from Nazism and got booted as soon as peace arrived. 

[wilcopops]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They are also visually unpleasant

Whereas coal fired power stations are so attractive?

[thaibeachlovers]

18 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

Whereas coal fired power stations are so attractive?

Windmills are usually placed on hilltops and ridge lines where they are very much "in your face".

Coal powered plants can be placed where few people see them.

 

[Ahab]

9 hours ago, Lacessit said:

The black/brown outs are caused by imperfect marketing of excess energy between the states. It's not a matter of insufficient generation.

Eventually, battery storage by individual households will push the power companies into hiking prices to consumers who can least afford it. Plus the fact we export gas that should be kept in Australia to meet our own demand. Meanwhile, idiots like Morrison wave a lump of coal around in Parliament.

Anything that produces heat (HVAC, kitchen oven, or freezer) will need a shit load of batteries to supply the loads that those appliances use.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and which politicians do you know that would ignore approval ratings? I know of none.

 

Even if one such were to emerge from the political swamp, they'd be gone at the next election, if the voters didn't like what they did.

Churchill saved the free world from Nazism and got booted as soon as peace arrived. 

Agree 100%. For politicians votes during elections are the only "approval ratings" that they care about. If they ignore negative approval ratings prior to the election, the number of votes they receive will likely not be enough to stay in office.   

[stevenl]

38 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Agree 100%. For politicians votes during elections are the only "approval ratings" that they care about. If they ignore negative approval ratings prior to the election, the number of votes they receive will likely not be enough to stay in office.   

At the moment in the extreme, which is a very, very sad state of affairs.

[kannot]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seriously? They defeated Germany, but far from "clearing up", went on to cause world wide chaos and disaster. Their environmental record is appalling.

i was NOT referring to their environmental impact in any way, the war in Europe was the war with Russia the rest was a sideshow

[kannot]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Every species that ever existed is exterminated if it can't adapt to environmental changes. What makes anyone think humanity is different?

If humans have overpopulated themselves to the point there isn't enough water, who is to blame, humans or nature? If we continue to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as if the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been suspended who is to blame, humans or nature? 

If anyone in power actually cared, they'd be doing something realistic about it, but all they do is garbage like banning plastic bags in supermarkets, ignoring that almost every thing in the supermarket is wrapped in plastic.

I doubt if many understand this as they continue to reproduce at a rate that can only cause disaster, IMO.

I didnt reproduce.................some may say thats a good  thing????

[Krataiboy]

17 hours ago, Lacessit said:

These guys are talking about defects in modelling. They're right. However, the only part of my post which is a model is the Tibetan Plateau. The Larsen Ice Shelf and Greenland Ice Cap are facts happening NOW.

Nobody is disputing your facts, only the conclusions to be drawn from them. Maybe you need to revisit the video.