Biden Executive Order Keystone Pipeline XL

[MRSpock]

I've seen that argument. I'm not a climate science denier, but that study is not 97% of climate scientists. It's only based on published work, and if someone doesn't agree 100% with human effect on climate they will have a negative impact on their career, which is not an unreasonable argument.

That said, I think it's fair to say the vast majority of climate scientists agree that humans have had a significant impact on the climate ... just don't die on that 98% hill.

Do you have any proof of this?

They'd be ostracized if they used bad science. And were clearly being disingenuous. Of course then they'd be propped up by whatever oil company/politician that wanted to use them as there "token" of there being no consensus.

If they used good science? Climatologists would be flocking to repeat his experiments and seeing if they could find the same results. And if he was correct he'd be propped up as a ****in genius, and it would cause the entire study of climatology to rethink their conclusions.

[MRSpock]

I actually agree with you on China. As for other countries (particularly in Africa and other developing regions), it’s a valid argument, and we must balance allowing them to industrialize with curtailing emissions.

That being said, the US leading the way on sustainable energy is a good thing. Historically market innovators do very well, whereas those that try to maintain the status quo in the face of innovation usually die out.

Would you rather the US be the Netflix of the sustainable energies market, or the Blockbuster?

Exactly. If America pushes the industry change there will be a lot of countries that will follow a long.

And at the end of the day if the oil industry dies down substantially, other countries will be forced to follow in our footsteps. If products no longer use gas, then countries will no longer have the necessity for gas. We are still the largest consumer of goods in the world. We control where the market goes, more than any other country.

And America is damn good at making sure that when they take the majority of cost... They will get the majority of the profits.

And it's not JUST America. But we are the leaders of the free world. Why should we not lead?

[MRSpock]

And scoots this is what I find disingenuous bout you. You claim to be pro science. You claim to agree with climatologists. Yet not only do you consistently argue and nit pick the people who defend the science. But you push ridiculous unfounded notions like this. This is the type of stuff you hear from Conservative talk radio.

The only things that will ostracize you anymore in the world of science is a lack of ethics.

[nastynice]

No, it's not required for new construction to have solar power the home. In CA there is a requirement for solar panels to be added to housing ... BUT ... it is not required if the house is often in shade (like where there are large trees or mountains) and it's not required for housing taller than 3 stories, AND it's expected to make up around 50% of the power used by the home, not 100%.

But regardless, I'm not arguing against solar, I'm just saying that there is no way super cargo size ships can operate on on-board solar power regardless of our technical advances. There isn't enough energy available to do it.

OTHER technological advancements can certainly do it, but solar cannot.

How can you say there is no way to power a ship via solar regardless of our advancements? If we can extract 10 times the amount of energy from the sun than we currently can, you dont think that allows us to do more?

Solar most definitely can, I dont get what ur saying. The amount of energy we extract from the sun isn't fixed, it can improve with advancements in the field. It already has and will continue to do som

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[nastynice]

The US absolutely should spend trillions on green energy. I just think we should do it internationally more than domestically. And those trillions should go to US based manufacturing and service and installation companies. Then the US can dominate that industry for the next 20 years.

We can't even build a rail road in our own state, we're supposed to build green buildings around the world?

You already know who's going to do what you're saying we should...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[nastynice]

Alternative sources of energy are not universally appropriate. In Iowa, for instance, you can't drive 40 miles without seeing a "wind farm". I don't believe you'll see one anywhere in major cities, however. We use some solar here as well. A de-commissioned coal fired plant was demolished and solar panels were put on the 20+ acres to generate energy. We are also getting away from coal as an energy source and going with natural gas, which burns a whole lot cleaner.
As I have said before, alternative sources are great where appropriate. A lot of hydro-power can be generated in the mountains and along major rivers. Wind power can be used in the plains. Solar power is great in the Southwest.

Wind is another great way to get energy. Gotta use the elements in our favor rather than squeezing the earth dry..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Scoots]

And here you are defending the opposite side of your beliefs again, what a shock!

That being said, what that number represents is that 97% of all peer reviewed scientific papers on Climate Change agreed it was man made. 3% said it was inconclusive and 0% said it was not.

And no, this is not a coordinated effort to silence deniers, and you even hinting at that as being a reason is disingenuous beyond belief.

No. All I'm saying is that when people say 98% of all climate scientists agree and cite that study it's false. That study is not of all climate scientists.

Then I literally said that the vast majority agree.

If you don't think people choose not to speak out when they don't agree with the masses then you haven't been paying attention to human history.

[Scoots]

No way. He just told me in no uncertain terms that he's not disingenuous.

So, tell me, what did I say there that was disingenuous?

[Scoots]

To circle back to this, Catman actually blew this idea to bits (and confirmed my contention).

Dude spent the past hour arguing against global warming being man made to the point of denial.

Yeah he did, but in that single post it allowed that humans DO have an impact but the debate was the magnitude.

[dbroncos78087]

In other words you'll believe whatever tidbit supports your already believed point, and ignore all other evidence. You'll continue to push misinformation like how climatologists all believed there was an incoming ice age, because it again supports your claim, and you have the inability to update your knowledge.

It’s like anti-vaxxers. They completely Bird Box their way through the medical literature in order to find that one Karen’s blog that says vaccines are bad because that’s what they want to hear.

[Scoots]

Do you have any proof of this?

They'd be ostracized if they used bad science. And were clearly being disingenuous. Of course then they'd be propped up by whatever oil company/politician that wanted to use them as there "token" of there being no consensus.

If they used good science? Climatologists would be flocking to repeat his experiments and seeing if they could find the same results. And if he was correct he'd be propped up as a ****in genius, and it would cause the entire study of climatology to rethink their conclusions.

That's not the way it's worked in the past. There have been countless examples of people saying "I see A and B and think C is the cause" and they get laughed into silence, then they go away and prove it and come back and get celebrated. For example ulcers being caused by bacteria ... the guy who thought that was publicly called names and ostracized by the community to the point that he gave himself an ulcer using bacteria to prove it. The science modern virus science is based on came from 4 scientists who were flat told they were wrong for decades until they finally proved it. Hell washing hands as a key element of surgery was shut down for centuries. And climate scientists who think the impact of humans is being overstated by other scientists can point to data and talk about how they interpret them differently but there is no concrete proof to change minds unless the difference is really big. But the idea that scientists flock to opposing ideas just isn't human nature ... most people don't want their lives work to be proven wrong, even to a small degree.

That said, CLEARLY humans have had a significant impact on the environment and I'm in no way denying it, just saying that the statement "98% of climate scientists agree" is not true based on that study which itself doesn't even claim that.

[Scoots]

How can you say there is no way to power a ship via solar regardless of our advancements? If we can extract 10 times the amount of energy from the sun than we currently can, you dont think that allows us to do more?

Solar most definitely can, I dont get what ur saying. The amount of energy we extract from the sun isn't fixed, it can improve with advancements in the field. It already has and will continue to do som

Okay. I'll try again. The sun is a big ball of fire that is throwing out a lot of energy in every direction. That energy travels through space and hits the earth. The amount of energy that hits the earth from the sun is a fairly consistent amount. It goes up and down some but not a lot. There is that much solar energy available and no more. Right now we are not good at turning that energy into electricity when we struggle to get 1/4 of the AVAILABLE energy. If we were able to get ALL of the AVAILABLE energy then we would have all of it. We can't get more than ALL of it. When you get to the bottom of the box of cereal you can't get more cereal from that box, you got it all. If we get to 100% efficient conversion of solar energy to electricity we can't get any more. If we get it all that's all there is to get.

The average care is under 9 square meters of plan area. Each square meter is hit with an average of 164 watts of energy in a day. In the best case scenario (no clouds, no fog, no precipitation, limited smog) peak solar energy hitting the earth is 600 watts. If you take your 9 sq m car and cover it with 100% efficient solar panels (that do not exist) you get 5400 watts available to do the work. To convert that to a number you might know more 5400 watts is under 8 horsepower. The average car now is 3700lbs (and getting heavier based on safety requirements and consumer requirements), and a 3700lb car with 8 hp is NOT a working car in the modern world. There simply is not enough energy available in solar power to power a modern car.

When you then scale that model up to a super-cargo ship you are talking about pushing 220,000 tons the size of a sky scraper through high drag water and the math goes crazy. That 400m x 60m ship can collect (if solar panels are perfect) 14M watts which translates to 19k hp which sounds like a lot but those ships use about 10 times that.

There is no way to get more than 100% of solar energy out of solar energy. Right now we are struggling to get to 25% of it.

[Scoots]

We can't even build a rail road in our own state, we're supposed to build green buildings around the world?

You already know who's going to do what you're saying we should...

Not green buildings, power.

And what we fail to do does not change what we should do.

[nastynice]

Okay. I'll try again. The sun is a big ball of fire that is throwing out a lot of energy in every direction. That energy travels through space and hits the earth. The amount of energy that hits the earth from the sun is a fairly consistent amount. It goes up and down some but not a lot. There is that much solar energy available and no more. Right now we are not good at turning that energy into electricity when we struggle to get 1/4 of the AVAILABLE energy. If we were able to get ALL of the AVAILABLE energy then we would have all of it. We can't get more than ALL of it. When you get to the bottom of the box of cereal you can't get more cereal from that box, you got it all. If we get to 100% efficient conversion of solar energy to electricity we can't get any more. If we get it all that's all there is to get.

The average care is under 9 square meters of plan area. Each square meter is hit with an average of 164 watts of energy in a day. In the best case scenario (no clouds, no fog, no precipitation, limited smog) peak solar energy hitting the earth is 600 watts. If you take your 9 sq m car and cover it with 100% efficient solar panels (that do not exist) you get 5400 watts available to do the work. To convert that to a number you might know more 5400 watts is under 8 horsepower. The average car now is 3700lbs (and getting heavier based on safety requirements and consumer requirements), and a 3700lb car with 8 hp is NOT a working car in the modern world. There simply is not enough energy available in solar power to power a modern car.

When you then scale that model up to a super-cargo ship you are talking about pushing 220,000 tons the size of a sky scraper through high drag water and the math goes crazy. That 400m x 60m ship can collect (if solar panels are perfect) 14M watts which translates to 19k hp which sounds like a lot but those ships use about 10 times that.

There is no way to get more than 100% of solar energy out of solar energy. Right now we are struggling to get to 25% of it.

I seriously doubt we are harnessing 25% of the total energy emitting from the sun onto earth.

https://www.insider.com/this-is-the-...r-power-2015-9



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[nastynice]

Not green buildings, power.

And what we fail to do does not change what we should do.

It makes sense to build here first, learn our craft here first, learn the methodology here first. Doing work on the other side of the world is significantly harder than doing it in your own backyard.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk