1 hour ago, Eleftheros said:

It's interesting to see how often collectivists refer to 'the science' as though this is something fixed and immutable, which only a high priesthood has access to, and claiming an unshakeable authority to which everybody else must bow down to in awe.

 

There are several things wrong with this.

 

First, politicians tend not to listen to the scientists who know best, but to the scientists they know best. Second, if you blindly accept 'the science' as it is currently understood, you would in the past have supported heliocentrism, phlogiston theory, blood-letting, and eugenics, to name just a few.

 

Science only prospers when its theories are open to question, debated and tested. To call something 'the science' as a fixed notion is therefore profoundly anti-science.

Go on, tell us what your alternative to science is?

 

 

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

Check the posts I was responding to. The poster claimed Greta may have changed her views, I was making it clear that was not the case at all. That's all.

I was responding to "We still have time to change the world." which I took to be from yourself, not the book, as nothing to say it was a quote.

 

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Go on, tell us what your alternative to science is?

My stance is completely pro-science.

 

It is against The Science(TM), that is, politically motivated 'science' which does not permit any questioning as to its methods or conclusions.

1 minute ago, Eleftheros said:

My stance is completely pro-science.

 

It is against The Science(TM), that is, politically motivated 'science' which does not permit any questioning as to its methods or conclusions.

I’m not aware of this alternative science(TM) of yours.

 

Maybe the ‘politically motivated’ thing came from the same place as your need to refer to others as ‘collectivists’.

 

 

 

55 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Good to see she acts responsibly when traveling

Not that responsibly, LOL.

 

https://apnews.com/article/be12be49011743daaa3646edb0de0b61

Sailing team to fly 2 crew to US to bring Thunberg boat back

1 hour ago, Eleftheros said:

Better would be to ask how many scientists believe that any of the actions being proposed to counter climate change are necessary, effective or affordable.

Ah, the real question!

 

Over the past few years that the so called "climate change" debate has been going on, I have asked that question a few times myself, but have yet to see any relevant reply.

I'm not holding my breath.

grow weed in mass amounts to help fight climate change. 

 

the science is there.

 

plus we would have so many more happy people ride this beotch into the ground. 

1 hour ago, Eleftheros said:

*Sigh* . I didn't need to click your link because I have already read those papers.

Respect, so now that you've read hundreds of pages covering:

 

Summary for Policymakers, Understanding the impacts of 1.5°C global warming above pre-industrial levels and related global emission pathways in the context of strengthening the response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty. Showing how emissions can be brought to zero by mid-century stay within the small remaining carbon budget for limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Why is it necessary and even vital to maintain the global temperature increase below 1.5°C versus higher levels? The feasibility of mitigation and adaptation options. The interactions of climate change and climate responses with sustainable development including sustainable development impacts at 1.5°C and 2°C, the synergies and tradeoffs. 

 

You are indeed the go to expert if anyone has any questions.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I was responding to "We still have time to change the world." which I took to be from yourself, not the book, as nothing to say it was a quote.

 

Well now you know and the link I supplied would also have shown you that.

58 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not that responsibly, LOL.

 

https://apnews.com/article/be12be49011743daaa3646edb0de0b61

Sailing team to fly 2 crew to US to bring Thunberg boat back

Well I guess they could have bought another boat instead. How dare they.

2 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

 

Better would be to ask how many scientists believe that any of the actions being proposed to counter climate change are necessary, effective or affordable.

IMO there is no doubt renewable energy, particularly solar, is effective and affordable. It's free, whereas fossil fuels have to be mined or extracted, then processed. Nuclear energy is effective; however, it requires enormous safeguards.

 

As far as being necessary, that ship has already sailed. Ask any insurance company, they are ratcheting up their premiums as fast as they dare. The first law of thermodynamics says storms are only going to get bigger, more intense, and more destructive with global warming. Think of hurricanes packing 400 km/hr winds hitting Miami.

 

The technologies are there, the science is there, it only requires funding to implement them.

 

Humanity's biggest obstacle is venal politicians and the fossil fuel industry that sustains them. Trump appointed an oil industry executive as his Secretary for the Environment. Closer to home, the former Liberal government in Australia had 90% of the staffers in the Prime Minister's Department with links to the fossil fuel industries. If anyone believes that's a path to renewables, I have a bridge in Sydney Harbor I'd like to sell them.

 

 

57 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Well now you know and the link I supplied would also have shown you that.

Just not interested enough to pursue every link provided.

It's actually helpful to indicate that a quote is in fact a quote, not leave it up to us to work it out.

18 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Nuclear energy is effective; however, it requires enormous safeguards.

That's old school nuclear. The new reactors under development, as seen on an Al Jazeera news item, are smaller, built in a factory and transported to the site, and require no additional cooling facilities that may fail. Claimed to be safe.

Hoped to be available in a decade, if I remember correctly- might have been 5 years.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/how-the-next-generation-of-nuclear-reactors-could-be-smaller-greener-and-safer

How the next generation of nuclear reactors could be smaller, greener and safer

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Just not interested enough to pursue every link provided.

It's actually helpful to indicate that a quote is in fact a quote, not leave it up to us to work it out.

Just not interested enough to pursue every link provided.

 

Cool, then I'm happy to correct you as you are the only one who was confused enough to ask

17 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Just not interested enough to pursue every link provided.

 

Cool, then I'm happy to correct you as you are the only one who was confused enough to ask

Ask what?

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That's old school nuclear. The new reactors under development, as seen on an Al Jazeera news item, are smaller, built in a factory and transported to the site, and require no additional cooling facilities that may fail. Claimed to be safe.

Hoped to be available in a decade, if I remember correctly- might have been 5 years.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/how-the-next-generation-of-nuclear-reactors-could-be-smaller-greener-and-safer

How the next generation of nuclear reactors could be smaller, greener and safer

Here's how the cost is described in t that article:

"SMRs can also be built in a factory and shipped to the location where they’ll eventually operate, cutting down construction costs. Magwood compared that process to manufacturing a commercial airliner, whereas constructing a traditional large nuclear power plant is more analogous to building an entire city block."

 

No comparison of cost to solar, wind, geothermal, renewables with storage. 

 

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Here's how the cost is described in t that article:

"SMRs can also be built in a factory and shipped to the location where they’ll eventually operate, cutting down construction costs. Magwood compared that process to manufacturing a commercial airliner, whereas constructing a traditional large nuclear power plant is more analogous to building an entire city block."

 

No comparison of cost to solar, wind, geothermal, renewables with storage. 

 

Doesn't rely on sunshine, wind, big batteries. Works 24/7. If it is as safe as claimed, what's the problem?