Nanker Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Just read a headline that says we can't find aliens because climate change killed them. http://news.discovery.com/space/alien-life-exoplanets/why-cant-we-find-aliens-climate-change-killed-them-160121.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Just read a headline that says we can't find aliens because climate change killed them. http://news.discovery.com/space/alien-life-exoplanets/why-cant-we-find-aliens-climate-change-killed-them-160121.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Just read a headline that says we can't find aliens because climate change killed them. http://news.discovery.com/space/alien-life-exoplanets/why-cant-we-find-aliens-climate-change-killed-them-160121.htm I always thought it was because they would progress technologically to the point where their machines eventually become self-aware enough to annihilate their creators for centuries of slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Just read a headline that says we can't find aliens because climate change killed them. http://news.discovery.com/space/alien-life-exoplanets/why-cant-we-find-aliens-climate-change-killed-them-160121.htm The last comment at the time I read this was the best: >>seismic events<< Seriously? Why are real scientists scared to face this Gaia cult like they faced the religious zealots of the past? Or are we really already in a new dark age? Answer: because $. A high tide raises all ships. The more $ that gets pumped into the Gaia cult, the more the cancer people can ask their donors/development people "why can't we raise more than the Gaia cult?" Or instead of "There's a single light of science and to brighten it anywhere, is to brighten it everywhere", you get "There is a single budget of science, and to increase it anywhere opens the door for demands to increase it everywhere". Remember when Obama first took office, and told us that somehow, some way, sicence had been forsaken...for something(implied religion but never said it)? It was ridiculous, but ask yourself: how many new "smoking is bad" studies do you think have been funded since he took office? Just take a guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Let It Snow, Let It Snow… The East Coast has been hit with a pretty major snow storm. For some reason, this is international news. To be fair, 25 inches of snow is quite a bit, although less than the Great Halloween Blizzard that struck the Twin Cities in 1991. I can tell I am getting old, reminiscing about great snowfalls of the past! But we are living in the era of Global Warming, so weather news has taken on a whole new dimension. Watts Up With That? notes Craig Kelly’s Facebook post on wind power in Sweden. It turns out that wind power doesn’t work well under wintry conditions: The entire rationale for wind turbines is to stop global warming by reducing the amount of CO2 being returned to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. In the attached picture, recently taken in Sweden, freezing cold weather has caused the rotor blades of a wind turbine to ice up bringing the blades to a complete stop. To fix the “problem” a helicopter is employed (burning aviation fuel) to spray hot water (which is heated in the frigid temperatures using a truck equipped with a 260 kW oil burner) on the blades of the turbine to de-ice them. The aviation fuel, the diesel for the truck, and the oil burned to heat the water, could produce more electricity (at the right time to meet demand) than the unfrozen wind turbine could ever produce. (Before it freezes up again). The attached picture is a metaphor of the complete insanity of the climate change debate. In decades to come this one photo alone with sum up an era of stupidity, when rational thought, logic and commonsense was abandoned and immense wealth and resources needlessly sacrificed. Immense wealth and resources are indeed being sacrificed, but not exactly needlessly. A great deal of money is being made, and a great deal of power is being transferred to the world’s governments. Which is the principal point of global warming alarmism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Let It Snow, Let It Snow… The East Coast has been hit with a pretty major snow storm. For some reason, this is international news. To be fair, 25 inches of snow is quite a bit, although less than the Great Halloween Blizzard that struck the Twin Cities in 1991. I can tell I am getting old, reminiscing about great snowfalls of the past! But we are living in the era of Global Warming, so weather news has taken on a whole new dimension. Watts Up With That? notes Craig Kelly’s Facebook post on wind power in Sweden. It turns out that wind power doesn’t work well under wintry conditions: The entire rationale for wind turbines is to stop global warming by reducing the amount of CO2 being returned to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. In the attached picture, recently taken in Sweden, freezing cold weather has caused the rotor blades of a wind turbine to ice up bringing the blades to a complete stop. To fix the “problem” a helicopter is employed (burning aviation fuel) to spray hot water (which is heated in the frigid temperatures using a truck equipped with a 260 kW oil burner) on the blades of the turbine to de-ice them. The aviation fuel, the diesel for the truck, and the oil burned to heat the water, could produce more electricity (at the right time to meet demand) than the unfrozen wind turbine could ever produce. (Before it freezes up again). The attached picture is a metaphor of the complete insanity of the climate change debate. In decades to come this one photo alone with sum up an era of stupidity, when rational thought, logic and commonsense was abandoned and immense wealth and resources needlessly sacrificed. Immense wealth and resources are indeed being sacrificed, but not exactly needlessly. A great deal of money is being made, and a great deal of power is being transferred to the world’s governments. Which is the principal point of global warming alarmism. A California well is leaking 55 tons of methane an hour, Fukushima, 96 Americans died building the Hoover dam, Worldwide estimate of premature deaths due to wood smoke is 2.7 to 3 million, with respiratory illness being the largest killer of infants. Health and Environment in Sustainable Development, World Health Organization, BP oil spill you got a perfect energy source? or should we judge energy sources for there relative merits, and their negative externalities . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 A California well is leaking 55 tons of methane an hour, Fukushima, 96 Americans died building the Hoover dam, Worldwide estimate of premature deaths due to wood smoke is 2.7 to 3 million, with respiratory illness being the largest killer of infants. Health and Environment in Sustainable Development, World Health Organization, BP oil spill you got a perfect energy source? or should we judge energy sources for there relative merits, and their negative externalities . So your reply to an obvious example of Climatista hypocrisy...............is to challenge me to name a perfect energy source ? a rather transparent (and telling) response. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 So your reply to an obvious example of Climatista hypocrisy...............is to challenge me to name a perfect energy source ? a rather transparent (and telling) response. . Any time you need a liberal to commit to a perfect energy source, just offer up incinerated aborted babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 As we approach our January 27th deadline................................ 5 Ways the Liberal Media Devoted a Decade to Gore’s Climate Apocalypse . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 So your reply to an obvious example of Climatista hypocrisy...............is to challenge me to name a perfect energy source ? a rather transparent (and telling) response. . You simply missed his very easy to understand point. No energy source yet is perfect. You have to use gasoline to get gasoline, for example. And that picture you posted is hardly emblematic of wind energy in cold weather. They have many systems that efficiently to deice blades without using a chopper Texas now produces 9% of its electricity from wind. So those saying alternative energy is not viable are losing the debate a little more each year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Texas now produces 9% of its electricity from wind. So those saying alternative energy is not viable are losing the debate a little more each year. And you won't see it increase above 9% any time soon. T. Boone Pickens has lost his shirt investing in wind farms, and with the price of oil as low as it is, wind is becoming too expensive to continue investing in it right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 And you won't see it increase above 9% any time soon. T. Boone Pickens has lost his shirt investing in wind farms, and with the price of oil as low as it is, wind is becoming too expensive to continue investing in it right now. Probably not. But still impressive as it is now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 You simply missed his very easy to understand point. No energy source yet is perfect. You have to use gasoline to get gasoline, for example. And that picture you posted is hardly emblematic of wind energy in cold weather. They have many systems that efficiently to deice blades without using a chopper Texas now produces 9% of its electricity from wind. So those saying alternative energy is not viable are losing the debate a little more each year. Yes through mandates and subsidies, wind energy has grown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Fossil fuels are reaping $550 billion a year in subsidies and holding back investment in cleaner forms of energy, the International Energy Agency said. Oil, coal and gas received more than four times the $120 billion paid out in incentives for renewables including wind, solar and biofuels, the Paris-based institution said today in its annual World Energy Outlook. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/fossil-fuels-with-550-billion-in-subsidy-hurt-renewables Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/fossil-fuels-with-550-billion-in-subsidy-hurt-renewables Of course, there's no way to veryify the IEA's numbers, so they may as well just be "pulled out of your ass" numbers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) Does somebody want to explain: 1. What a subsidy of a commodity is 2. Why governments use them 3. What would happen in this global economy if we had no supply protection for vital commodities at all to ...lybob. I don't have the time today. EDIT: Please Make sure to define the obvious, direct relationship between how much electricity is being produced by each source, and the amount of subsidy each source gets. Edited January 25, 2016 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Of course, there's no way to veryify the IEA's numbers, so they may as well just be "pulled out of your ass" numbers... Hey Tom, these are better numbers than a meme that compares unfavorably the energy to de-ice a wind turbine that's rated at 3 mega watts than that wind turbine produces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Hey Tom, these are better numbers than a meme that compares unfavorably the energy to de-ice a wind turbine that's rated at 3 mega watts than that wind turbine produces. No, they're both pretty much just "pulled out of your ass numbers." The meme just has a benefit of illustrating a concept that's almost always ignored: maintenance has an energy footprint of its own, usually not included in efficiency calculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 This is about as convincing and scientific as it gets. http://www.dailydisclosure.com/world/15-compelling-photos-global-warming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts