Jump to content

Libs to push Biden to declare "Climate Change" a national emergency because we told you in March 2020 this was next


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, TSOL said:

Ever see how you can plug a lightbulb into a potato and it will power the lightbulb? 

 

We need to harness that technology 

Uncle Fester can power a loightbulb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wacka said:

Uncle Fester can power a loightbulb.

Interesting factoid: Uncle Fester was a child actor named Charlie Koogan. His parents ‘stole’ all the money he made in his childhood. So now if you’re a child actor you must first show proof of having opened a Koogan Account into which your earnings are deposited where your parents can’t touch it. They actually check your Account number every day before you can appear on set. 

Edited by SoCal Deek
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

What's the backup power plan on days where the sun doesn't shine?  

 

Battery storage or normal grid power or so they say. I don't see it as possible. Until hydrogen fuel cells are affordable and nuclear fusion , we stay with fossil fuel or a whole lot  of nuclear power.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 3/15/2022 at 7:28 PM, Big Blitz said:

 

 

 

 

 

We know them better then they know themselves 

The R's have the house.  Is their heat tolerance better than mine?  In the sunbelt red states?  Should we help them when they're m-e-l-t-i-n-g?  Farmers Insurance co is speaking.  Should we listen or make them cover Fla?  Socialism...

Edited by redtail hawk
  • Eyeroll 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The emergency the "environmentalists" don't discuss is their belief that the human population is too large for the Earth to support, and "we" need to get it down to a couple billion or so in order to manage the climate, address species extinction and habitat destruction along with issues like resource depletion. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The emergency the "environmentalists" don't discuss is their belief that the human population is too large for the Earth to support, and "we" need to get it down to a couple billion or so in order to manage the climate, address species extinction and habitat destruction along with issues like resource depletion. 


Nah, we can address climate change without degrowth. We have the technology. We just need the willpower. 

  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2023 at 8:26 AM, ChiGoose said:


Nah, we can address climate change without degrowth. We have the technology. We just need the willpower. 

What technologies do we have currently that can replace the energy output currently generated by fossil fuels?  I would say nuclear but that requires a 15 to 20 year lead time and there's not a lot urgency being demonstrated to deploy that technology.  Fusion?  Maybe 50+ years, if ever.  If we can indeed address "climate change" (and fossil fuel depletion) without eliminating billions of people I'd like to see the plan and the details. Produced by engineers and scientists rather than politicians and environmentalists.  

 

I also just don't think there's enough discussion is public settings about the topics.  Most of it is just believe what our "experts" are telling you and anyone that disagrees with their conclusions and ideas is a denier or misinformed.  That's complete nonsense.  Discussion and debate, diversity of ideas, and constructive criticism generally leads to better ideas and solutions. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by All_Pro_Bills
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2023 at 5:26 AM, ChiGoose said:


Nah, we can address climate change without degrowth. We have the technology. We just need the willpower. 

You go first Goose and be an example for the rest of us. Turn everything you have off. It can be done. I’m guessing you’re choosing not to. (But it’s only a guess.)

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You go first Goose and be an example for the rest of us. Turn everything you have off. It can be done. I’m guessing you’re choosing not to. (But it’s only a guess.)

Give Goose a break. I don't have the "will power" either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

What technologies do we have currently that can replace the energy output currently generated by fossil fuels?  I would say nuclear but that requires a 15 to 20 year lead time and there's not a lot urgency being demonstrated to deploy that technology.  Fusion?  Maybe 50+ years, if ever.  If we can indeed address "climate change" (and fossil fuel depletion) without eliminating billions of people I'd like to see the plan and the details. Produced by engineers and scientists rather than politicians and environmentalists.  

 

I also just don't think there's enough discussion is public settings about the topics.  Most of it is just believe what our "experts" are telling you and anyone that disagrees with their conclusions and ideas is a denier or misinformed.  That's complete nonsense.  Discussion and debate, diversity of ideas, and constructive criticism generally leads to better ideas and solutions. 

 

 

 

 

Its like the rest of the world grasp that. this link shows the Nuke plants scheduled to be built.  Almost none in this continent. 

 

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

 

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/others/emerging-nuclear-energy-countries.aspx

 

 we love to shut them down.

 

 

 

Nuclear reactor shutdowns by country 2023 | Statista

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

The sun is the sun.  It hasn't changed.  It appears we don't have a mechanism to do that.  But the ozone layer...

The ozone layer is racist.  

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...