Global warming could cut over 60 countries' credit ratings by 2030, study warns

[RickBradford]

9 hours ago, placeholder said:

Does this mean that you think that the warnings of the IPCC, in contrast to those of celebrities, should be taken seriously and acted upon?

Ah, the dear old World Resources Institute. Part of the New Climate Economy, funded by the World Bank and the IMF.

 

The former home of the egregious Jennifer Morgan, who went on to become Greta Thunberg's special adviser and was head of Greenpeace International. Collaborators with E3G and the WWF, friends of Lisa Neubauer and Extinction Rebellion.

 

The perfect climate NGO.

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Ah, the dear old World Resources Institute. Part of the New Climate Economy, funded by the World Bank and the IMF.

 

The former home of the egregious Jennifer Morgan, who went on to become Greta Thunberg's special adviser and was head of Greenpeace International. Collaborators with E3G and the WWF, friends of Lisa Neubauer and Extinction Rebellion.

 

The perfect climate NGO.

Meanwhile you’ve got nothing.

[placeholder]

18 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Ah, the dear old World Resources Institute. Part of the New Climate Economy, funded by the World Bank and the IMF.

 

The former home of the egregious Jennifer Morgan, who went on to become Greta Thunberg's special adviser and was head of Greenpeace International. Collaborators with E3G and the WWF, friends of Lisa Neubauer and Extinction Rebellion.

 

The perfect climate NGO.

 The info I offered was just a succinct summary by the WRI of what was in the IPCC report. You know, the report that says things are going to get even worse if greenhouse gas production isn't drastically cut by the time the 1.5 degree increase in average temperature is reached. Just more nonsense and innuendo from you because that's all you've got.

[RickBradford]

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Just more nonsense and innuendo from you because that's all you've got.

I have much more.

 

I have the certainty that no sufficiently concerted effort will be made by governments worldwide to avoid whatever catastrophes the WRI, Bob Geldof, Greenpeace, Greta Thunberg or the IPCC say may happen. Even the most rabid supporters of "clImate action" have now understood that.

 

So you may as well just get ready for the consequences, whatever they may be.

 

Or, better yet, start your own climate NGO and get on the gravy train while it lasts. Better hurry, though, there are thousands of them popping up everywhere, from the ACE and the ACF to the WRI, WWF and XR.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

I have much more.

 

I have the certainty that no sufficiently concerted effort will be made by governments worldwide to avoid whatever catastrophes the WRI, Bob Geldof, Greenpeace, Greta Thunberg or the IPCC say may happen. Even the most rabid supporters of "clImate action" have now understood that.

 

So you may as well just get ready for the consequences, whatever they may be.

 

Or, better yet, start your own climate NGO and get on the gravy train while it lasts. Better hurry, though, there are thousands of them popping up everywhere, from the ACE and the ACF to the WRI, WWF and XR.

More evasion from someone clearly allergic to data.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/26/2021 at 10:24 PM, placeholder said:

They call Bjorn Borg a denialist because he claims he believes that the earth is warming but also claims that it's not a serious problem.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/books/review/bjorn-lomborg-false-alarm-joseph-stiglitz.html

While it may be a serious problem for humans, it's not a problem for planet earth. The planet will carry on just fine and will start over with some other dominant species.

If humans can't stop overpopulating the planet and keep polluting it humanity is IMO doomed regardless of the temperature.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/26/2021 at 10:51 PM, RickBradford said:

I don't have "energy hatred". I love the stuff.

 

And the fact remains that no matter what renewable energy technologies may be feasible in the future, all of them are unproven, long-term projects which don't measure up to the demands of the climate activists. Even the Vox article concedes that much.

No one seems to be taking into account that much of the renewable technology depends on scarce resources like rare earth or is sourced from less than desirable places, which could become a problem if we try to convert 8 billion people to renewables, many living in poor countries that can't afford it.

[RickBradford]

21 minutes ago, placeholder said:

More evasion from someone clearly allergic to data.

No, it's your (understandable) unwillingness to look at the facts and see that the whole thing has been a colossal waste of time and money.

 

The Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) on climate were agreed on legally at the Paris Climate jamboree a few years back, and are being monitored. Are they sufficient?

 

https://climateactiontracker.org

 

Here's the entry for China, the biggest cog in the climate machine: "Highly insufficient. NDCs with this rating fall outside of a country's 'fair share' range and are not at all consistent with holding warming to below 2C let alone with the Paris Agreement's stronger 1.5C limit. If all government NDCs were in this range, warming would reach between 3C and 4C."

 

USA's rating - critically insufficient, ie even worse than China. "If all government NDCs were in this range, warming would reach between 3C and 4C." Brazil (insufficient) , Indonesia (highly insufficient), Japan (highly insufficient). They left out India and Russia from their analysis, probably right off the charts, but you get the picture.

 

My advice to you would be - when some unpleasant data comes along, don't immediately cast about for a way to discredit it, or explain it away. Examine it on its merits, and incorporate that into your world view. It works out much better in the long run.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/26/2021 at 11:18 PM, placeholder said:

You're the one who claimed activists hate energy. Maybe you shouldn't propose silly formulations without understanding what they mean?

They certainly appear to do so in NZ, where the greens won't allow hydro dams to be built, at the same time as denying oil exploration.

That may backfire on them badly when the few power stations that use gas can't get it and have to convert to coal. It's not as though there are windmills and solar plants being built all over the place.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, stevenl said:

The difference is the celebrities are following the science. Therefore their noise is not infantile, in contrast to uninformed comments like yours commenting on the celebrities rather than the scientific consensus. 

If Leo DiCaprio is "following the science" why is he apparently flying around on a private jet? Likewise for Al Gore?

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/27/2021 at 12:29 AM, RickBradford said:

I have no desire to bust your delusions, but whatever those climate experts over at Vox say, the fact is that there is no major economy in the world that is anywhere near making solar power a core element of its energy strategy.

 

In fact, I doubt there is any major economy where solar makes up more than 10% of the the overall power consumption. It is boutique power; nice to talk about but fairly trivial.

 

I know the Green/Left likes easy solutions, but the real world requires addressing real problems, and the way things are going, solar just ain't making it.

 

I hope that somebody cracks the problem before we all start to go extinct in 2030, but I'm not optimistic.

The NZ government is so committed to solar power that they never talk about it to my knowledge, and I haven't seen any solar power plants being built. Far as I have been able to ascertain, solar panels are only for personal use and there are no subsidies for installing them.

According to the internet, repayment period before getting "free" energy can be as long as 20 years- will they still be working after 20 years?

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

No, it's your (understandable) unwillingness to look at the facts and see that the whole thing has been a colossal waste of time and money.

 

The Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) on climate were agreed on legally at the Paris Climate jamboree a few years back, and are being monitored. Are they sufficient?

 

https://climateactiontracker.org

 

Here's the entry for China, the biggest cog in the climate machine: "Highly insufficient. NDCs with this rating fall outside of a country's 'fair share' range and are not at all consistent with holding warming to below 2C let alone with the Paris Agreement's stronger 1.5C limit. If all government NDCs were in this range, warming would reach between 3C and 4C."

 

USA's rating - critically insufficient, ie even worse than China. "If all government NDCs were in this range, warming would reach between 3C and 4C." Brazil (insufficient) , Indonesia (highly insufficient), Japan (highly insufficient). They left out India and Russia from their analysis, probably right off the charts, but you get the picture.

 

My advice to you would be - when some unpleasant data comes along, don't immediately cast about for a way to discredit it, or explain it away. Examine it on its merits, and incorporate that into your world view. It works out much better in the long run.

You on the one hand criticize the sufficiency of current measures to address climate change while at the same time denigrate efforts and those who are making the effort to improve current measures.

 

You have nothing.

 

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The NZ government is so committed to solar power that they never talk about it to my knowledge, and I haven't seen any solar power plants being built. Far as I have been able to ascertain, solar panels are only for personal use and there are no subsidies for installing them.

According to the internet, repayment period before getting "free" energy can be as long as 20 years- will they still be working after 20 years?

I shouldn't think solar power is the most effective green power source for New Zealand - especially the south island . It isn't known as the land of the long white cloud for nothing

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They certainly appear to do so in NZ, where the greens won't allow hydro dams to be built, at the same time as denying oil exploration.

That may backfire on them badly when the few power stations that use gas can't get it and have to convert to coal. It's not as though there are windmills and solar plants being built all over the place.

Actually, NZ is an ideal location for wind power and plans are in the works to install a lot more of it. 

[placeholder]

22 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I shouldn't think solar power is the most effective green power source for New Zealand - especially the south island . It isn't known as the land of the long white cloud for nothing

But it is just about ideal for wind power.

[Yellowtail]

46 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You on the one hand criticize the sufficiency of current measures to address climate change while at the same time denigrate efforts and those who are making the effort to improve current measures.

 

You have nothing.

 

 

 

The engine has stopped and the plane is in a dive. You have kicked out a window and are flapping your hand furiously outside to slow the plane, and you are angry that the pilot won't stop trying to to start the engine long enough to help you convince the passengers looking for parachutes to help you. 

 

That about it?

[stevenl]

5 hours ago, RickBradford said:

 

What they are actually doing is making themselves look ridiculous, and damaging the credibility of attempts to "fix" the climate with their sanctimonious self-righteous hypocrisy.

 

On that, they are admittedly doing a good job, as witness the inadequate commitments of governments worldwide to do anything substantive on climate.

Agreed, governments worldwide are not doing enough.

 

But the only ones making themselves look ridiculous are the ones denying science, who keep referring to the lack of knowledge of laymen like the celebrities you mention, while those laymen are referring to scientists.

[Yellowtail]

I wonder:

How much area of solar panels it would take to power Bangkok?

How many batteries would it take to store enough power to last overnight?

Will rice grow under solar panels?

 

I think they should make clear solar panels so you could stack them up. I think I'll write them a letter...

 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Agreed, governments worldwide are not doing enough.

 

But the only ones making themselves look ridiculous are the ones denying science, who keep referring to the lack of knowledge of laymen like the celebrities you mention, while those laymen are referring to scientists.

 

What governments are doing that?

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I wonder:

How much area of solar panels it would take to power Bangkok?

How many batteries would it take to store enough power to last overnight?

Will rice grow under solar panels?

 

I think they should make clear solar panels so you could stack them up. I think I'll write them a letter...

 

You could actually look up this stuff about batteries up.

 

And it just goes to show how little you know that there are clear solar cells that have all kind of uses including being used as a film on windows and in agrivoltaic agriculture.

[placeholder]

14 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

What governments are doing that?

Until about 2 months ago the USA for one.

[Yellowtail]

14 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Until about 2 months ago the USA for one.

What did they do?

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What did they do?

For one thing scrubbed any mention of a  human-caused climate change in government reports and on government websites

[Yellowtail]

15 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You could actually look up this stuff about batteries up.

 

And it just goes to show how little you know that there are clear solar cells that have all kind of uses including being used as a film on windows and in agrivoltaic agriculture.

 

You think you can look something like that up? Hilarious. I could probably dig up data I need to figure it out, but that would take a bit of effort. I do know that I can cover my roof with solar panels and get almost half of my daytime electricity usage, and if I do it mostly myself it will have about a three year payback.

 

I know about the window film, I think it's been around over twenty years now, but clearly (no pun intended) it does not work such that you could stack them effectively or farm efficiently under them. Now you can probably find some examples of them being stacked, and some examples of farming, but not multiple stacks and large scale farming. 

 

I have nothing against solar, I think it's great, but in crowded urban areas that require heat and or air-conditioning and that will soon have a car to plug in it is, and will continue to be largely useless until significant advancements in technology are made.

[Yellowtail]

14 minutes ago, placeholder said:

For one thing scrubbed any mention of a  human-caused climate change in government reports and on government websites

 

How do you equate scrubbing a website to claiming they (the US government) keep referring to some celebrity's lack of knowledge?

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

The engine has stopped and the plane is in a dive. You have kicked out a window and are flapping your hand furiously outside to slow the plane, and you are angry that the pilot won't stop trying to to start the engine long enough to help you convince the passengers looking for parachutes to help you. 

 

That about it?

Leave the parables to Jesus.

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

 

I have nothing against solar, I think it's great, but in crowded urban areas that require heat and or air-conditioning and that will soon have a car to plug in it is, and will continue to be largely useless until significant advancements in technology are made.

By this kind of logic conventional power plants are useless for cities too. Transmission lines  can carry solar generated electricity just as they can carry conventionally generated electricity.

[RickBradford]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You on the one hand criticize the sufficiency of current measures to address climate change while at the same time denigrate efforts and those who are making the effort to improve current measures.

 

You have nothing.

As usual, you have managed to miss the point with ridiculous ease. Please don't take up archery. Or darts.

 

The current measures to address climate change are insufficient to satisfy the radical climate zealots. They are more than enough for me. 

 

It now amounts to about $1 billion per day p**sed away on feel-good climate fripperies, money which could actually be used to benefit humanity, if that were something the climate zealots cared about in any way.

[Yellowtail]

18 minutes ago, placeholder said:

By this kind of logic conventional power plants are useless for cities too. Transmission lines  can carry solar generated electricity just as they can carry conventionally generated electricity.

 

The issue I think is the area the solar panels require, not the location. The area required for a conventual power plant is much smaller than the area of a solar plant. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

As usual, you have managed to miss the point with ridiculous ease. Please don't take up archery. Or darts.

 

The current measures to address climate change are insufficient to satisfy the radical climate zealots. They are more than enough for me. 

 

It now amounts to about $1 billion per day p**sed away on feel-good climate fripperies, money which could actually be used to benefit humanity, if that were something the climate zealots cared about in any way.

Your use of language reveals your emotions.

 

Tackling climate change is a benefit for humanity.