GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Rob Plant + 2,631]

Guys IMO any link to Co2 and climate change is BS. No climate model is anywhere near accurate in this regard whereas the solar model is 97% accurate and Jay this hasnt been challenged as far as I can see.

Where I do agree with Jay is that the move to renewables EV's etc is inevitable as its political will, also renewable energy is rapidly becoming cheaper than FF so economically makes sense.

All that is good as pollution will decline and save lives.

Oil + gas still has a bright future IMO we just need to use it in the right way and transportation isnt it. Electricity generation using NG I think is sensible and wont kill the planet especially if its generating blue hydrogen with carbon capture. Equally NG usage for heating and cooking remains the most viable option there is.

It is ludicrous not to have a mix of energy sources or be reliant on just 1 or 2. A mix gives you flexibilty.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

14 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Guys IMO any link to Co2 and climate change is BS. No climate model is anywhere near accurate in this regard whereas the solar model is 97% accurate and Jay this hasnt been challenged as far as I can see.

Where I do agree with Jay is that the move to renewables EV's etc is inevitable as its political will, also renewable energy is rapidly becoming cheaper than FF so economically makes sense.

All that is good as pollution will decline and save lives.

Oil + gas still has a bright future IMO we just need to use it in the right way and transportation isnt it. Electricity generation using NG I think is sensible and wont kill the planet especially if its generating blue hydrogen with carbon capture. Equally NG usage for heating and cooking remains the most viable option there is.

It is ludicrous not to have a mix of energy sources or be reliant on just 1 or 2. A mix gives you flexibilty.

Can you point me to something on the solar model? I'm not finding anything.

[Rob Plant + 2,631]

I have actually found 2 very credible scientists who do debunk Zharkova's theory although they dont disagree that her studies to date are 97% accurate, which suggest she is on to something. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/09/the-imminent-mini-ice-age-myth-is-back-and-its-still-wrong

Question

If the climate doom brigade are correct and that we are in the midst of a runaway heating up of the planet due to FF usage then when we go totally green (if that ever happens) wont the cleaner air (no pollution) reverse the global dimming we currently have and make the planet even hotter???

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

37 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

I have actually found 2 very credible scientists who do debunk Zharkova's theory although they dont disagree that her studies to date are 97% accurate, which suggest she is on to something. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/09/the-imminent-mini-ice-age-myth-is-back-and-its-still-wrong

Question

If the climate doom brigade are correct and that we are in the midst of a runaway heating up of the planet due to FF usage then when we go totally green (if that ever happens) wont the cleaner air (no pollution) reverse the global dimming we currently have and make the planet even hotter???

The global dimming has less cooling effect than the CO2 has warming. 

 

She's been trashed. Tabloid science.

Paper that claimed the Sun caused global warming gets retracted

It turns out the Earth is also subject to gravity, which was a problem.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/paper-that-claimed-the-sun-caused-global-warming-gets-retracted/

[Rob Plant + 2,631]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The global dimming has less cooling effect than the CO2 has warming. 

Yes but it will exacerbate the problem surely

Anyway gotta go I'm on holiday now speak to you in a week or so

Edited July 16, 2021 by Rob Plant

[Boat + 1,315]

On 7/15/2021 at 12:05 PM, RichieRich216 said:

Global power demand is rising so fast this year after the 2020 slump that even the continued strong growth of renewable electricity generation will not be enough to meet it, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Thursday, warning that coal power generation will jump and threaten efforts of emissions reduction.

This year, global electricity demand is expected to surge by 5 percent from the levels of 2020, when power consumption fell by around 1 percent due to the effects of the pandemic, the IEA said in its semi-annual Electricity Market Report published on Thursday.

Thanks to the global economic recovery, electricity demand worldwide is also expected to rise by another 4 percent in 2022, the agency added.

Despite the strong momentum of renewable power generation, renewables alone will not be anywhere close to meeting with rising global power demand, the IEA said. This means that nearly half of the rise in electricity demand will be met by power generation from fossil fuels, most notably coal.

The Asia Pacific region, China and India in particular, will be the largest contributors to rising electricity demand, the IEA said.

According to the agency’s estimates, fossil fuel electricity generation is set to cover 45 percent of additional demand this year and 40 percent next year, while nuclear power would make up the rest of the increase in global power demand. As a result, carbon emissions from the electricity sector – which fell in both 2019 and 2020 – are expected to rise by 3.5 percent in 2021 and by 2.5 percent in 2022, reaching an all-time high next year.

Despite the growth in renewables, the annual rise in green energy generation outpaced the growth in electricity demand only in 2019 and 2020, but it was due to very slow or declining demand in those years. This suggests that “renewables outpacing the rest of the electricity sector is not yet the new normal,” the IEA said.

“Renewable power is growing impressively in many parts of the world, but it still isn’t where it needs to be to put us on a path to reaching net-zero emissions by mid-century,” said Keisuke Sadamori, the IEA Director of Energy Markets and Security. “As economies rebound, we’ve seen a surge in electricity generation from fossil fuels,” Sadamori added

GO GREENIES YOUR ALL NUTS

You just have little memory. Many times I have stated you can’t green your way out of pollution and/climate change. While I support global efforts to get cleaner it simply won’t happen unless we reverse population growth. I am just amazed at the dumbness of the unwoke to cheer the spread of rapid ill health, pain and misery of their fellow humans. The unwoke Trumpsters like to makeup shyt as they support the deep state polluters.

[Boat + 1,315]

Anyone can go back a few years and prove the greenies have made fantastic progress and will continue to do so in the context of what would the world look like if tech and efficiency had not played its role. Thank God for 1/3 of the population dragging the rest by the hair or it would have been much worse much faster.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,541]

10 minutes ago, Boat said:

You just have little memory. Many times I have stated you can’t green your way out of pollution and/climate change. While I support global efforts to get cleaner it simply won’t happen unless we reverse population growth. I am just amazed at the dumbness of the unwoke to cheer the spread of rapid ill health, pain and misery of their fellow humans. The unwoke Trumpsters like to makeup shyt as they support the deep state polluters.

A woken ZPG....Hmm a bounty does come to mind.

[Boat + 1,315]

5 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

A woken ZPG....Hmm a bounty does come to mind.

That would but a milestone along the way if sustainability is the goal. I know, I know, a tough concept for the redneck to grasp.

[RichieRich216 + 454]

1 hour ago, Boat said:

You just have little memory. Many times I have stated you can’t green your way out of pollution and/climate change. While I support global efforts to get cleaner it simply won’t happen unless we reverse population growth. I am just amazed at the dumbness of the unwoke to cheer the spread of rapid ill health, pain and misery of their fellow humans. The unwoke Trumpsters like to makeup shyt as they support the deep state polluters.

Oh so you’re like pushing a WOKE Nazi program to rid the globe of people! DSAF, shoot yourselve in the head first, save some ozone and oxygen…

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

23 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Fossil fuel costs have increased more than renewable inputs. Renewables are still cheaper.

Oil demand will be decreasing in absolute terms by the end of the decade as EVs pass 50% new market share.

Renewables and EVs have experienced drastic cost pressures this past year with only a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of the national vehicle stocks being impacted....just a drop in the proverbial bucket.

And ALREADY we see drastic price increases for essential renewable and EV inputs. Not going to happen, this will not end well for the Green Dreamers.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

5 hours ago, RichieRich216 said:

Oh so you’re like pushing a WOKE Nazi program to rid the globe of people! DSAF, shoot yourselve in the head first, save some ozone and oxygen…

So, let me get this straight....the Greenies are suggesting that we have too many people on this planet, too much CO2 is required to produce the food needed to sustain the current billions of people. So we have to reduce CO2, reduce agricultural productivity, and that means famine and starvation for billions of people.

That sounds like a simple way to fulfill the Green Dreamers desire for massive extermination of world population. Just let nature take its course, just reduce CO2 and let those folks starve. Brilliant, simple and brutal. The National Socialists in the 1940's used a different technique, not so sophisticated.

 

Edited July 17, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

16 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The global dimming has less cooling effect than the CO2 has warming. 

 

She's been trashed. Tabloid science.

Paper that claimed the Sun caused global warming gets retracted

It turns out the Earth is also subject to gravity, which was a problem.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/paper-that-claimed-the-sun-caused-global-warming-gets-retracted/

That paper is one which I cited for you, Jay. It looks like you did not bother to read it...why should I waste my time giving you material to enlighten you? Like beating a dead horse.

No, this paper was not retracted, it did not follow the retraction process, which requires that the author be given an opportunity to refute the criticisms being made. The author did refute them after this non-retraction was made. The "problem" was not a problem, it did not make any impact on the calculations.

A paper cannot be retracted on the basis of comments or research made and published after the article publication date, that is a non-starter. And the author must be consulted and brought into the process of review. Again, a non-starter.

This paper was WITHDRAWN (not by the author), it was not retracted. The withdrawal violates the rules of academic publication.

By the way, Jay, we discussed this issue in detail on another thread, and I think that you were involved in the discussion.

You don't remember?

Edited July 17, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

12 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

That paper is one which I cited for you, Jay. It looks like you did not bother to read it...why should I waste my time giving you material to enlighten you? Like beating a dead horse.

No, this paper was not retracted, it did not follow the retraction process, which requires that the author be given an opportunity to refute the criticisms being made. The author did refute them after this non-retraction was made.

A paper cannot be retracted on the basis of comments made after the publication date, that is a non-starter. And the author must be consulted and brought intoo the process of review. Again, a non-starter.

This paper was WITHDRAWN (not by the author), it was not retracted. This violates the rules of academic publication.

By the way, Jay, we discussed this issue in detail on another thread, and I think that you were involved in the discussion.

You don't remember?

No we discussed the guy from Santa Cruz, we never discussed the solar cycle. You are just confused again.

But even if you did link it to me, why would I waste my time reading a paper that had been retracted? Oh and you can absolutely know that you didn't give me this link because I would have thrown it in your face for being retracted just like I am doing now.

This paper was absolutely retracted and if followed the proper process. Note how it says "retracted" below. Simple enough even for you. Your new science was analysed by the scientific community and thrown in the garbage can. We are moving forward with the transition to rid ourselves of excess CO2.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3

Edited July 17, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

11 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No we discussed the guy from Santa Cruz, we never discussed the solar cycle. You are just confused again.

But even if you did link it to me, why would I waste my time reading a paper that had been retracted?

This paper was absolutely retracted and if followed the proper process. Note how it says "retracted" below. Simple enough even for you. Your new science was analysed by the scientific community and thrown in the garbage can. We are moving forward with the transition to rid ourselves of excess CO2.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3

Wrong Jay, we discussed the retraction issue with respect to this solar paper. Just as I pointed out above. Perhaps you did not participate in the discussion.

The title "Retracted Article" is from the citation which I gave to you above, it is clearly labelled that BY THE JOURNAL (not by the author), but there was never a retraction, it did not follow the retraction process. It was WITHDRAWN by the journal itself without cause. Check the correspondence by the author accompanying the republished article.

Again, an article which passes peer review and is published CANNOT be retracted on the basis of material which is published AFTER the date of the article. Otherwise there would be chaos in scientific journalism. Further, an article which passes peer review cannot be retracted without the participation of the author in discussion concerning whatever criticisms form the basis of the challenge. The author was not given the opportunity to refute the criticism, although she did so in her comments following the article's withdrawal. She demonstrated that the criticism did not impact any of the calculations of the paper. That would be sufficient to silence the challenge. 

In other words, there were no grounds for retraction, this was not a retraction, but a withdrawal caused by agitation from Green Dreamers.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

On 7/15/2021 at 12:22 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

I'm still waiting for you to provide one that a consensus of scientists agree with.

In the mean time 

This is from the work you are citing:

A prominent 15 million-year CO₂ cycle coincides closely with identified mass extinctions of the past, suggesting a pressing need for research on the relationship between CO₂, biodiversity extinction, and related carbon policies. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76/htm

Other interesting research shows:

When plants take in an excess of CO2, their chemical makeup changes in a way that that’s harmful to the humans and animals that depend on them for nutrition: higher concentrations of CO2, increases the synthesis of carbohydrates like sugars and starches, and decrease the concentrations of proteins and nutrients like zinc, iron, and B-vitamins. “This is very important for how we think about food security going forward,” Ebi says. https://globalhealth.washington.edu/news/2019/04/23/high-co2-levels-will-wreck-plants-nutritional-value-so-don-t-plan-surviving#:~:text=Not only will climate change,of CO2%2C increases the synthesis

Again, Jay, there is no evidence that any of this is currently happening.. In fact, we have observed higher levels of agricultural productivity and enhanced global greening due to higher levels of CO2.

The doomsayers are short again.

The "identified mass extinctions" refers to non-human, tiny structured life forms. The concern was that current CO2 levels would devastate fish populations....no evidence of that, so this looks like another false alarm.

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

6 hours ago, Boat said:

That would but a milestone along the way if sustainability is the goal. I know, I know, a tough concept for the redneck to grasp.

So, let me get this straight....the Greenies are suggesting that we have too many people on this planet, too much CO2 is required to produce the food needed to sustain the current billions of people. So we have to reduce CO2, reduce agricultural productivity, and that means famine and starvation for billions of people.

That sounds like a simple way to fulfill the Green Dreamers desire for massive extermination of world population. Just let nature take its course, just reduce CO2 and let those folks starve. Brilliant, simple and brutal. The National Socialists in the 1940's used a different technique, not so sophisticated.

 

 

---

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

6 hours ago, Boat said:

That would but a milestone along the way if sustainability is the goal. I know, I know, a tough concept for the redneck to grasp.

So, let me get this straight....the Greenies are suggesting that we have too many people on this planet, too much CO2 is required to produce the food needed to sustain the current billions of people. So we have to reduce CO2, reduce agricultural productivity, and that means famine and starvation for billions of people.

That sounds like a simple way to fulfill the Green Dreamers desire for massive extermination of world population. Just let nature take its course, just reduce CO2 and let those folks starve. Brilliant, simple and brutal. The National Socialists in the 1940's used a different technique, not so sophisticated.

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

Thanks to EVs, demand for coal-driven electrical power generation is going up and up.

"Surging Electricity Needs Keep Fossil Fuel Demand Alive. Global electricity demand is growing faster than aggregate renewables capacity, meaning that more fossil fuels will be required to meet the increasing needs, warns the International Energy Agency (IEA). The IEA sees 2021 power consumption rising by 5% year-on-year, followed by another 4% increment in 2022."

Edited July 17, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

13 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Thanks to EVs, demand for coal-driven electrical power generation is going up and up.

"Surging Electricity Needs Keep Fossil Fuel Demand Alive. Global electricity demand is growing faster than aggregate renewables capacity, meaning that more fossil fuels will be required to meet the increasing needs, warns the International Energy Agency (IEA). The IEA sees 2021 power consumption rising by 5% year-on-year, followed by another 4% increment in 2022."

"Fossil fuel-based electricity is set to cover 45% of additional demand in 2021 and 40% in 2022, ... renewables are expected to be able to serve around half of the projected growth in global demand in 2021 and 2022."

Renewables out pace fossil fuels to satisfy the big growth in electricity demand. That doesn't look good for the fossils. Renwables weren't even a player 10 years ago and now they are the clear leader.

https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/01e1e998-8611-45d7-acab-5564bc22575a/ElectricityMarketReportJuly2021.pdf

Edited July 17, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

17 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

"Fossil fuel-based electricity is set to cover 45% of additional demand in 2021 and 40% in 2022, ... renewables are expected to be able to serve around half of the projected growth in global demand in 2021 and 2022."

Renewables out pace fossil fuels to satisfy the big growth in electricity demand. That doesn't look good for the fossils. Renwables weren't even a player 10 years ago and now they are the clear leader.

https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/01e1e998-8611-45d7-acab-5564bc22575a/ElectricityMarketReportJuly2021.pdf

Yeah. For installed capacity, that is. Actual electricity generation is another story, and always will be. 

Nuclear is, and always will be the real future for mankind going forward, but the likes of you can't get over tilting at windmills. 

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

22 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

"Fossil fuel-based electricity is set to cover 45% of additional demand in 2021 and 40% in 2022, ... renewables are expected to be able to serve around half of the projected growth in global demand in 2021 and 2022."

Renewables out pace fossil fuels to satisfy the big growth in electricity demand. That doesn't look good for the fossils. Renwables weren't even a player 10 years ago and now they are the clear leader.

https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/01e1e998-8611-45d7-acab-5564bc22575a/ElectricityMarketReportJuly2021.pdf

Only nibbling at the margins, 80% of energy demand is still supplied by fossil fuels, and that number ain't changed a wiggle in recent years.

[RichieRich216 + 454]

14 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

So, let me get this straight....the Greenies are suggesting that we have too many people on this planet, too much CO2 is required to produce the food needed to sustain the current billions of people. So we have to reduce CO2, reduce agricultural productivity, and that means famine and starvation for billions of people.

That sounds like a simple way to fulfill the Green Dreamers desire for massive extermination of world population. Just let nature take its course, just reduce CO2 and let those folks starve. Brilliant, simple and brutal. The National Socialists in the 1940's used a different technique, not so sophisticated.

 

There are no scientist or funded groups that can accurately say what will happen in or on earth, those claiming “To KNOW “are just throwing darts, if these people played the stock market it would be the crash of 1900’s every year! They guess based on there own base line theories which change decade to decade! This planet we call earth has cycles all of which at the earliest data was started to be collected in the 50’s so these scientists in reality have 71 years of study based on a baseline they created and have been wrong more then right! 
 

This is and has always been a business to suck funding for research! Why is it the loudest screaming fly around on private jets? You can equate this to cancer, TRILLIONS have been thrown at it yet only a small % is curable, why is that, well to many jobs, businesses would be gone if cured! Smartened up everything comes down to the one singular basic fact $$$$$$$$$$$! Go the fuck up already!

[turbguy + 1,402]

...and then there were those 200 MPG carburetors that were suppressed by Big Oil...

😜

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

2 hours ago, turbguy said:

...and then there were those 200 MPG carburetors that were suppressed by Big Oil...

😜

What was that about?