sidneybear

I think so too.

Practice what you preach, or you've got nothing.

Do you stay at home to minimise your carbon footprint, or do you fly around in carbon belching aircraft? You post here, so I'm guessing the latter, which means you aren't part of the solution to your imaginary problem, which in turn means you don't really believe in the so-called "climate emergency" yourself, preferring to lecture others. Stop fretting about the weather, and enjoy your life.

It's a bit cooler today. Try not to worry about the weather so much.

And in your world, there's no such thing as analytical thinking.

What is a "climatologist" exactly? Is it someone funded by the green industry who feeds phoney data into made up algorithms? Just like those covid "scientists" did, eh? Lots of people on the list are highly educated people covering a wide range of disciplines, including Nobel laureates, etcetera. Give me your analysis of the storage problem, or I'll start thinking you're a link posting bot. Googling links means you're bone idle, and unable to introduce your own analysis into the debate.

Follow the money trail to see that these phoney "fact checking" outfits are themselves fake. Politfact is funded by inter alia the Poynter Institute, and look at all the lefty outfits that fund them: https://www.poynter.org/major-funders/ Dig around a bit and you’ll see that Bill Gates is another contributor. All this climate hogwash is political or commercial. Haven't you realised it yet? Why are you so gullible? Now please provide me with your analysis on the storage problem.

Since you're so fond of links, here is a list of 1,900 very clever and distinguished folks who think that the so-called "climate emergency" is a load of politicised codswallop... or are your links bigger than mine because yours feature academics who don’t live in the real world? https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/ Climate pseudoscience is just a way of lining people's pockets and keeping the peasants poor, cold and immobile. Of course, you'll counter with more links of your own, because you lack the faculties to do your own analysis and question what you post.

ABC is a lefty outfit that is supposed to be impartial. It's a bit like the BBC, or the Australian ABC: All it does is recite leftist nostrums like all this guff about changing the weather. People laugh at it. We never did have that ice age that all those eggheads were shouting about, now did we? Next up, you'll be posting links to the Guardian.

It's cooling off a bit in Thailand now. Haven't you noticed? Quite balmy now. Hot seasons are, well, hot, bit they end when it starts raining. Happens every year around this time. No need to get your knickers in a twist about trying to change the weather.

You get a "sense" that it "could take centuries". Pretty vague stuff that. Back in the 1970's, academic eggheads were screaming about an impending age. Prophecising doom must be a lucrative business.

More academic waffle, written in your usual patronising tone. None of these eggheads live in the real world, and they'll conclude whatever their donors tell them to conclude. Scientific research has been corrupted by politics and money. It isn't independent anymore. Explain to me, using your own analysis, how a $20 per kWh prototype battery technology will be scaled up to supply the entire electricity grid when windmills and solar panels aren't online. You'll need to include all the variables and constraints that I've asked you for earlier. It might not be incumbent on you to educate people, but it is incumbent on you to demonstrate insight and understanding of third party material that you post here. Otherwise stop posting links that you yourself don't understand.

Take a closer look at the prototype battery technology that you Googled, and then tell me how it solves the energy crisis that phasing out conventional electricity generation will cause. Real world please, no pie in the sky stuff.

All you do is Google and post links to unproven academic research and prototype technology, or anything else that supports the warmist creed, without adding any of your own insights. You have nothing.

I'd much rather read your paraphrased opinion of what you find online, rather than just links to it without your own analysis, or author's voice. Anyone can Google and post links, many of which might present both sides of the same argument, but it takes skill to interpret them and apply their content to real world situations. In relation to these batteries, what's your opinion on how production could be scaled to make renewables a real contender, obviating the need for base load generation (fossil fuels and nuclear) that still can't be done without when there's no sun and wind? $20 per kWh is $20,000,000 per GWh, GW being the realm that power generation is usually talked about. A 1 GW nuclear power reactor, for example, can produce nearly 24 GWh of power per day. it feasible to scale up the production of three batteries to that level, by when, and at what environmental impact? Of course, batteries are useless unless they're charged, so what kind of renewable generation infrastructure would need to be built to replace nuclear and fossil fuels, taking into account increased demand from EVs? I'm interested in your own analysis, rather than just links here.

The point I'm making is that you don't overlay your own insights, opinions, or knowledge onto anything. You just post links all the time. Did you find a solution to the storage problem yet? One that exists and is feasible in the real world, rather than the academic world?

You talk in links, rather than from your own knowledge. I studied the Blackrock case as part of my MBA. What I told you is well known in management circles. Suffice to say that Larry Fink has since started walking back his enthusiasm in ESG and all things green, such are the colossal financial losses associated with fads like these.

You've obviously never heard of Blackrock's use of activist shareholders to enforce Larry Fink's green and ESG beliefs in company boards. It's well known in management circles, so just because you've never heard of it doesn't make it untrue.

The link you posted is behind a paywall, so I was unable to read it. Can you please paraphrase it? I also noted that you've switched this battery technology panacea from iron air to sodium ion. The part of the article I got access to mentioned 600MW, but not for how long, at what cost, and at what environmental and human impact to produce the batteries in the first place (hint: lithium ion).

A more likely scenario is that the lexicographer was too young to recall the origin of the term, or was politically aligned with the warmist movement. Can't you debate anything without jeering at your opponents? It makes you come across as unsure of yourself and overly defensive, which is hardly surprising given that your arguments rely on solutions that are commercially and technically unproven.

I was surprised that the dictionary you quoted didn't use as an example the most common original usage of the word "denier". Holocaust denier was in popular use way before the word was appropriateld by the warmist cult to smear its opponents. Why would a dictionary omit such a thing?

Read my post again. Renewables couldn't fill the shortfall caused by the Ukraine war. Entire countries are short of energy, and are being put out of business and deindustrialising. Meanwhile, China adds more coal fired (not windmills) electricity generating capacity in a year than the entire UK uses. Windmills and your non existent batteries won't keep the lights on or keep people warm in winter.

No. All you did was put your faith in the past speed of technological advances, extrapolating forward to tell me that iron air batteries will solve the storage problem, just because some boffin at MIT says so. In the real world, lots of research falls by the wayside, and research teams milk funding as much as they can, while they can, by publishing hyped up forecasts. I'm not rudely jeering at you, but you'll have to put up more than pie in the sky research articles to power the cities of today. Without storage, renewables are useless.

You’ve just put forward a nonexistent solution to power storage. MIT research that you posted showcases iron air batteries that doesn't yet exist, might never commercially, and as such won't solve real world problems of today. Try to focus on the real world, rather than the academic one. Batteries don't exist that will power cities when the wind stops blowing and the sun sets.

Consumers are being driven into poverty because there's not enough investment in fossil fuels. The gigantic price increases at the onset if the Ukraine war, when gas exports from Russia were reduced, shows just how effective these windmills are: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9491/#:~:text=Trends in prices up to 2021&text=They started to increase towards,%2C a 36% real increase. In Australia too, consumer electricity prices have increased substantially, while power shortages loom because of the Nut Zero zealots closing all the coal fired power stations. You'll dig out this or that link from one or another green industry sympathetic academic, but real people are feeling severe financial pressure because of the green religion.