Jump to content

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


webfact

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...