Worst Joke Ever 2024

[Chomper Higgot]

15 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Sorry, that won't wash.

 

China is expanding renewables, but it's also expanding fossil fuel power, and nuclear power. China desperately needs more energy, of whatever kind it can get.

 

The overall contribution of renewables worldwide is still risible, and anybody who claims that renewables are soon going to become a major energy source is either not reading the relevant literature or is being deliberately misleading.

 

That's mainly why the Green lobby is complaining about the outcome of this conference.

 

 

 

 

“BP Statistical...”

 

You are presenting a graph produced by an oil company.

 

No bias there then.

[Chomper Higgot]

20 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

As Bill Clinton used to say, "It's the economy, stupid".

 

Countries such as China understand the importance and the absolutely essential role of cheap energy in economic development.
Countries such as Australia, that force up the price of energy for political reasons, make themselves less competitive in the global market. Energy is the foundation of all activity in a modern civilization. Nothing happens without the expenditure of energy.

 

To some extent an increase in the cost of energy can be offset by an increase in the efficiency of the use of that energy, but that increase in efficiency is limited. Countries that use cheap energy with maximum efficiency will tend  to triumph, economically, over countries that use expensive energy with the same efficiency.

 

China is a major manufacturer of solar panels because it has access to cheap power, mainly from coal. While it's true that China is reducing its vast number of small, old-fashioned, pollution-emitting, domestic coal plants, which have been largely responsible for the significant haze and smog in its cities, it's replacing them with large, modern, low-emission, ultra-supercritical coal plants which enable it to manufacture solar panels at a very competitive price to sell to countries who are deluded that reductions in CO2 levels will protect them, and the rest of the world, from the effects of extreme weather events and rising sea levels.

 

The reason for the claims that renewable energy is now as cheap as energy from coal is not just because the technology of renewable energy has improved and the manufacturing cost has come down, but also because the cost of energy from coal has risen.

 

Why has the cost of energy from coal risen? Because the coal power plants are not being used to the capacity they were designed for. They are increasingly being used only as reliable back-ups when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. The wholesale price of the energy from the coal plants must therefore rise proportionally, or the company goes bankrupt, in the absence of government subsidies.

 

This is another form of delusion. We kid ourselves that the cost of renewables has now reached parity with the cost of fossil fuels because we have forced up the wholesale price of fossil fuel energy by using those fossil fuel plants inefficiently. As a result, the average cost of energy, nation-wide, has risen. We're shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

In 2007 Australia was among the countries with the lowest energy prices in the world. Now it is among the countries with the highest energy prices in the world. The State of South Australia, with the highest proportion of its energy coming from renewables, has actually the highest electricity prices in Australia, and by some reports, the actual highest in the world.

 

https://stopthesethings.com/2018/09/08/south-australias-50-renewable-energy-fail-worlds-highest-power-prices-caused-by-subsidised-wind-solar/

 

I'm really dismayed that a country like Australia, with massive reserves of coal, gas and uranium, now has among the highest electricity prices in the world. How stupid! China is laughing all the way to the bank.

Yes we know dirty energy is cheaper.

[Ahab]

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 5:27 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

“The whole idea of taxing astronomical sums out of citizens for some pie eyed scheme makes me sick.”

 

Start accepting the overwhelming scientific consensus and the fallacy making you sick will evaporate, you’ll feel better.

At one time the "scientific consensus" was that the world was flat. In this case the cure is worse than the problem. I don't know about you but I like having a car and traveling on airplanes occasionally. People will adapt to an increase in temperature, just as we adapted to increases in temperatures globally after the last ice age. In many ways the Northern Hemisphere is a much nice place to live minus hundreds of feet of ice. 

 

When the international community comes up with an honest plan that would actually decrease (in a measurable way) global warming it will be very interesting to see how much support such a plan would have from anyone. 

[Credo]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

At one time the "scientific consensus" was that the world was flat. In this case the cure is worse than the problem. I don't know about you but I like having a car and traveling on airplanes occasionally. People will adapt to an increase in temperature, just as we adapted to increases in temperatures globally after the last ice age. In many ways the Northern Hemisphere is a much nice place to live minus hundreds of feet of ice. 

 

When the international community comes up with an honest plan that would actually decrease (in a measurable way) global warming it will be very interesting to see how much support such a plan would have from anyone. 

I'd be interested to know what science it was that thought the world was flat.   I think you are talking about the pre-science time.   

 

More than just people are affected by Climate Change.

[VincentRJ]

55 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yes we know dirty energy is cheaper.

Do you also know that all coal-fired plants are not equally dirty and that the latest Ultra-Supercritical coal-fired plants have negligible emissions of pollutants, and burn coal more efficiently, which is why sensible countries such as China continue to build them and prosper as a result?

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Credo said:

More than just people are affected by Climate Change.

There's nothing necessarily bad about climate change. It's always changed in the past and will continue to change in the future. In any given location, over a given period of time, climate will change, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse from the human perspective.

 

It's misguided arrogance and pure folly to think we can stop climate changing, or make climate change in a benign way to suit our purposes, simply by using CO2 levels as a sort of control knob.
 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

There's nothing necessarily bad about climate change. It's always changed in the past and will continue to change in the future. In any given location, over a given period of time, climate will change, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse from the human perspective.

 

It's misguided arrogance and pure folly to think we can stop climate changing, or make climate change in a benign way to suit our purposes, simply by using CO2 levels as a sort of control knob.
 

Yes climate is always changing, But it's about rate of change. And the rate of change has greatly accelerated due to rising levels of greenhouse gas. 

To say that rate doesn't matter is like saying you don't care if your investments get a 1 percent return or a 10 percent return. As long as the return is positive, it's basically the same. 

[VincentRJ]

25 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

To say that rate doesn't matter is like saying you don't care if your investments get a 1 percent return or a 10 percent return. As long as the return is positive, it's basically the same. 

Good point. ????

 

150 years ago we were getting about 0.028% return on our investment. Now we're getting about 0.0404%, and possibly a few decades into the future we might get as high as 0.05%. Still very small, but better than nothing, especially considering its effect on food production.

 

It's difficult to accurately calculate, but the total value of the increased food production world-wide,  since the industrial revolution, resulting from the additional CO2 factor alone, would be in the trillions of dollars.

 

If we were able to magically funnel all the accumulated human emissions of CO2 to outer space, and bring atmospheric CO2 levels back down to pre-industrial levels, there would be unprecedented world-wide food shortages.

 

Fortunately, CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere for a long time, so even if we were able stop further CO2 emissions immediately, there would be no catastrophic food shortages, so we can all relax, as long as we don't act foolishly and build our homes on flood plains, or on the coast close to sea level and in areas subject to hurricanes.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Good point. ????

 

150 years ago we were getting about 0.028% return on our investment. Now we're getting about 0.0404%, and possibly a few decades into the future we might get as high as 0.05%. Still very small, but better than nothing, especially considering its effect on food production.

 

It's difficult to accurately calculate, but the total value of the increased food production world-wide,  since the industrial revolution, resulting from the additional CO2 factor alone, would be in the trillions of dollars.

 

If we were able to magically funnel all the accumulated human emissions of CO2 to outer space, and bring atmospheric CO2 levels back down to pre-industrial levels, there would be unprecedented world-wide food shortages.

 

Fortunately, CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere for a long time, so even if we were able stop further CO2 emissions immediately, there would be no catastrophic food shortages, so we can all relax, as long as we don't act foolishly and build our homes on flood plains, or on the coast close to sea level and in areas subject to hurricanes.

Do you have any independent scientific evidence that food production has increased because of higher CO2 levels.  You might want to look up a certain person named Norman Borlaug before you makes such an uninformed assertion again.

 

[marqus12]

On 12/17/2018 at 5:21 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

The ozone hole was real, and the solution was real. The hole is closing.

The only reason you are not affected is that it is only at the poles where people don't live in significant numbers.

if I had a bridge for sale...me think you buy

[VincentRJ]

10 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Do you have any independent scientific evidence that food production has increased because of higher CO2 levels.  You might want to look up a certain person named Norman Borlaug before you makes such an uninformed assertion again.

 

Yes, of course. There's lots of 'real' scientific evidence that can be verified in 'real' time, as opposed to the dubious computer models which attempt to predict future climatic conditions, and which don't meet the rigorous requirements of the methodology of science which has resulted in all the marvelous products of science and technology which we all appreciate.

 

There are many, many uncertainties regarding the processes of climate change, but there are a few issues that we can be certain about.
First, climate is always changing in some respect and to some degree, whether favourable or not to human habitation in a particular area. 

 

Second, carbon dioxide is essential for all life on earth, if not directly then certainly indirectly. Plants cannot grow without it and therefore, without CO2, the entire ecosystem would collapse.

 

Thirdly, for many years, farmers have injected CO2, from gas bottles, into their greenhouses to increase crop production. The effect of increased CO2 levels alone, on plant growth, can be observed. In other words, one can change just one factor, and observe its effect in a relatively short period of time, such as one growing season.

 

Using 2 or more greenhouses in the same area, growing the same species of plants, using the same amount of water, the same amount of fertilizers in the same quality of soil, at the same temperatures and with the same amount of light, we can observe the effects of just one variable in just one of the greenhouses. That variable is a change in the percentage of CO2.

 

This is the nature of 'true' science, rather than the hogwash and parroted, political nonsense that 97% of all climate scientists claim that CO2 is the main driver of climate change and that such human emissions of CO2 will be disastrous.

 

Just as there is no sound scientific evidence that the current, very tiny percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere, and even moderate increases in the future, will be catastrophic, there is also no sound scientific evidence that 97% of all climatologists are of the opinion that the effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions will be disastrous. Only the scientifically illiterate members of the public believe that 97% consensus.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 10:02 PM, bristolboy said:

This is a meaningless statistic. There already exists a huge installed base of non-renewable infrastructure. It's obviously going to take time for that to change. But it's the investment now that's going to be the infrastracture of the future. And what makes the increase more impressive is that from just 2015 to 2017 investment in solar energy bought 25 percent more power. That's because the cost per unit of electricity has been dropping precipitously.

And now that economical battery storage is a reality, that will make renewables even more appealing.

And of course there is the huge issue of subsidies for hydrocarbons that is rarely acknowledged by the right. For instance fuel subsidies in Indonesia. Thanks for that, by the way. And of course, the USA hugely subsidizes the oil and gas industry.

Of course the governments have got it wrong with their obsession on solar, but that's probably due to all the things that are wrong with governments anyway, populism, corruption etc.

Wave power is the way to go, and there is apparently sod all emphasis on that compared to solar. Solar is fine in countries with large deserts, but most countries have coastlines with an energy source that doesn't stop when it's raining or night time. Batteries just cause pollution when they are scrapped. It's notable that electricity companies have started to penalise house owners with solar because they don't buy enough electricity.

Wave machines can also pump water up hill so it can generate hydro power, or off peak power can be used to pump the water so it can generate at peak times.

It's like electric cars charged from the grid- governments have gone down the wrong track, as usual.