Discussion:
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
Add Reply
gordo
2018-06-10 19:43:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn
and accept it.

Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.

"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
AlleyCat
2018-06-11 01:01:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 13:43:15 -0600, gordo says...
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn
and accept it.
Last time we listened to a NON-scientist tell us the world is going to end
if we didn't give the government trillions of dollars to "study" the myth
that man influences the weather to the extent that the screechers only
THINK he does, we got nothing but poorer.

Thanks, Obama.

A partial list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies and their
loan amounts that they will default on:

1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9. EnerDel's subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
17. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
18. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
19. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
20. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
21. Olsen's Crop Service and Olsen's Mills Acquisition Company ($10M)*
22. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
23. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
24. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
25. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
26. GreenVolts ($500,000)
27. Vestas ($50 million)
28. LG Chem's subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
29. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
30. Navistar ($39 million)
31. Satcon ($3 million)*
32. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
33. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
--
Climate Hillbilly Davis

It's "weather" when the temperatures don't agree with what climate
screechers have to say, and then it's climate change, when it does.

"It's all about money in the end. Keeping the Gravy Train running."


Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers

Climate Change Scientists Caught Tampering With Data to Show Rising Sea
Levels

"NOAA And NASA Corrected Historical Temperature Data And Fabricated
Temperature Data"

"NASA Made Efforts To Discredit Their Own Satellite Data"

"NASA Refused To Give Data And Information Requested By The US
House Of Representatives Science, Space And Technology Committee"

"NASA And NOAA Caught In Climate Data Manipulation"

"NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000"

"Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA"

"NASA/NOAA Mislead, Deceive and Lie About 'Hottest Year' Claim - Concede
2014 NOT "Hottest Year"

"Climate Fraud: NASA's Recent Global Warming "Corrections" Equal a +95.0°C
Per Century Trend"

https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=noaa+nasa+caught

**********************************************************

UN Official Admits That Climate Change Used As A Ruse To Control The
World's Economy
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/diabolical-lie-called-climate-change-used-
un-promote-economic-agenda/
*****
"Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power" Causes Climate Change
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/un-climate-summit-causes-of-
climate-change-unequal-distribution-of-wealth-and-power/
*****
U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-
destroy-capitalism/
*****
Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-
admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
*****
United Nations Official Admits the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax is
to Destroy Capitalism
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2015-02-
27/united-nations-official-admits-purpose-global-warming#.V-nGUOM1HmE
JTEM is right
2018-06-11 02:55:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The climate has been cycling between
extremes all through the Quaternary
Period. It's you jackasses who keep
pretending that it hasn't.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/59272128411
Chom Noamsky
2018-06-11 05:08:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a form of CYA.

Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the United States.

The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Unum
2018-06-11 14:47:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
Chom Noamsky
2018-06-11 15:55:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind and
solar, because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
Dat cuz de coal gittin replaced wit natchural gas:

Loading Image...

Dat leave more coal fer de export:

"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data shows"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
Unum
2018-06-11 18:26:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/trump-cant-save-coal
"More Capacity Closed in 2018 Than First Three Years of Obama Administration"
Chom Noamsky
2018-06-11 23:50:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind and
solar, because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Unum
2018-06-12 05:06:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's actually no lock-in
after all?
Wally W.
2018-06-12 11:40:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's actually no lock-in
after all?
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive>
Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do we really even
need solar and wind?”

“Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that publicly.”
...
"Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more
costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental footprint than
the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding large amounts of
solar and wind to the grid requires."
Chom Noamsky
2018-06-13 04:02:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's actually no lock-in
after all?
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive>
Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do we really even
need solar and wind?”
“Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that publicly.”
...
"Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more
costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental footprint than
the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding large amounts of
solar and wind to the grid requires."
Just wait a decade. When solar and wind further prove to be dead-end
failure tech, nuclear will undergo a massive renaissance.
Wally W.
2018-06-13 04:20:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's actually no lock-in
after all?
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive>
Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do we really even
need solar and wind?”
“Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that publicly.”
...
"Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more
costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental footprint than
the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding large amounts of
solar and wind to the grid requires."
Just wait a decade. When solar and wind further prove to be dead-end
failure tech, nuclear will undergo a massive renaissance.
Unhappily, the opportunity costs from waiting for the stench of those
brain farts to dissipate will be gigantic.

What *else* could we have been doing with the money, brainpower, and
raw materials (rare earth metals, etc.) that is being channeled down
those dead ends?

Greenies whinge about the fate of future generations (should their
imaginary catastrophe arrive) ... while they squander the inheritance
of said generations.

http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
"In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion. Future generations will
wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
ridiculous."

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/merchants-of-despair
Merchants of Despair
Radical Environmentalists,
Criminal Pseudo-Scientists,
and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism
Chom Noamsky
2018-06-13 06:35:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's actually no lock-in
after all?
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive>
Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do we really even
need solar and wind?”
“Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that publicly.”
...
"Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more
costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental footprint than
the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding large amounts of
solar and wind to the grid requires."
Just wait a decade. When solar and wind further prove to be dead-end
failure tech, nuclear will undergo a massive renaissance.
Unhappily, the opportunity costs from waiting for the stench of those
brain farts to dissipate will be gigantic.
What *else* could we have been doing with the money, brainpower, and
raw materials (rare earth metals, etc.) that is being channeled down
those dead ends?
Greenies whinge about the fate of future generations (should their
imaginary catastrophe arrive) ... while they squander the inheritance
of said generations.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
"In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion. Future generations will
wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
ridiculous."
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/merchants-of-despair
Merchants of Despair
Radical Environmentalists,
Criminal Pseudo-Scientists,
and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism
Climate change never was a mitigation problem, just like it wasn't for
all of human history.

It's an adaptation problem.
Kibbu Ubik
2018-06-13 08:33:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Wally W.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the
United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's actually no lock-in
after all?
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive>
Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do we really even
need solar and wind?”
“Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that publicly.”
...
"Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more
costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental footprint than
the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding large amounts of
solar and wind to the grid requires."
Just wait a decade. When solar and wind further prove to be dead-end
failure tech, nuclear will undergo a massive renaissance.
Unhappily, the opportunity costs from waiting for the stench of those
brain farts to dissipate will be gigantic.
What *else* could we have been doing with the money, brainpower, and
raw materials (rare earth metals, etc.) that is being channeled down
those dead ends?
Greenies whinge about the fate of future generations (should their
imaginary catastrophe arrive) ... while they squander the inheritance
of said generations.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
"In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion. Future generations will
wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
ridiculous."
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/merchants-of-despair
Merchants of Despair
Radical Environmentalists,
Criminal Pseudo-Scientists,
and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism
Climate change never was a mitigation problem, just like it wasn't for
all of human history.
It's an adaptation problem.
Which is cheaper mitigating or adapting?
What's the cost of adapting to a 1 metre, 2 metre .. rise in sea levels.
What's the cost of adapting to a 2C rise in temperature.
--
Wally W.
2018-06-13 12:18:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kibbu Ubik
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Wally W.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change
is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the
United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind
and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's actually no lock-in
after all?
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive>
Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do we really even
need solar and wind?”
“Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that publicly.”
...
"Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more
costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental footprint than
the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding large amounts of
solar and wind to the grid requires."
Just wait a decade. When solar and wind further prove to be dead-end
failure tech, nuclear will undergo a massive renaissance.
Unhappily, the opportunity costs from waiting for the stench of those
brain farts to dissipate will be gigantic.
What *else* could we have been doing with the money, brainpower, and
raw materials (rare earth metals, etc.) that is being channeled down
those dead ends?
Greenies whinge about the fate of future generations (should their
imaginary catastrophe arrive) ... while they squander the inheritance
of said generations.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
"In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion. Future generations will
wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
ridiculous."
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/merchants-of-despair
Merchants of Despair
Radical Environmentalists,
Criminal Pseudo-Scientists,
and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism
Climate change never was a mitigation problem, just like it wasn't for
all of human history.
It's an adaptation problem.
Which is cheaper mitigating or adapting?
Which is cheaper: trying to stop an unstoppable force or getting out
of its way?
Post by Kibbu Ubik
What's the cost of adapting to a 1 metre, 2 metre .. rise in sea levels.
Less than trying to stop it.
Post by Kibbu Ubik
What's the cost of adapting to a 2C rise in temperature.
Less than trying to stop it.

Do you plan to stop either of those from **ever** happening?

If not, why do you want to waste money now to "fight" what will happen
eventually (with or without our help) ... only to pay the adaptation
costs later anyway?

How do you know there will be money left to pay for adaptation later
if you piss money away now trying to "fight" an unstoppable force?

Do greenies think things through, or do they believe that everyone's
minds are as muddled as theirs by their FUD?
Chom Noamsky
2018-06-13 15:32:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kibbu Ubik
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Wally W.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change
is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the
United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind
and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's actually no lock-in
after all?
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive>
Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do we really even
need solar and wind?”
“Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that publicly.”
...
"Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more
costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental footprint than
the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding large amounts of
solar and wind to the grid requires."
Just wait a decade.  When solar and wind further prove to be dead-end
failure tech, nuclear will undergo a massive renaissance.
Unhappily, the opportunity costs from waiting for the stench of those
brain farts to dissipate will be gigantic.
What *else* could we have been doing with the money, brainpower, and
raw materials (rare earth metals, etc.) that is being channeled down
those dead ends?
Greenies whinge about the fate of future generations (should their
imaginary catastrophe arrive) ... while they squander the inheritance
of said generations.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
"In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion.  Future generations will
wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
ridiculous."
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/merchants-of-despair
Merchants of Despair
Radical Environmentalists,
Criminal Pseudo-Scientists,
and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism
Climate change never was a mitigation problem, just like it wasn't for
all of human history.
It's an adaptation problem.
Which is cheaper mitigating or adapting?
Definitely adapting.
Post by Kibbu Ubik
What's the cost of adapting to a 1 metre, 2 metre .. rise in sea levels.
What's the cost of adapting to a 2C rise in temperature.
Sea level has risen about 130 meters since the trough of the last ice
age, back when the ice was 2,000+ meters thick on a good portion of the
continents.

During peak Eemian 130yka, temps were 2C+ warmer and sea level 8 meters
higher than now.

When you consider the extremes of natural climate change, trying to stop
SLR, one way or the other, is completely futile.
Unum
2018-06-13 16:17:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Kibbu Ubik
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Wally W.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change
is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just
a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a
form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the
United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind
and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's actually no lock-in
after all?
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive>
Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do we really even
need solar and wind?”
“Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that publicly.”
...
"Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more
costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental footprint than
the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding large amounts of
solar and wind to the grid requires."
Just wait a decade.  When solar and wind further prove to be dead-end
failure tech, nuclear will undergo a massive renaissance.
Unhappily, the opportunity costs from waiting for the stench of those
brain farts to dissipate will be gigantic.
What *else* could we have been doing with the money, brainpower, and
raw materials (rare earth metals, etc.) that is being channeled down
those dead ends?
Greenies whinge about the fate of future generations (should their
imaginary catastrophe arrive) ... while they squander the inheritance
of said generations.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
"In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion.  Future generations will
wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
ridiculous."
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/merchants-of-despair
Merchants of Despair
Radical Environmentalists,
Criminal Pseudo-Scientists,
and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism
Climate change never was a mitigation problem, just like it wasn't for
all of human history.
It's an adaptation problem.
Which is cheaper mitigating or adapting?
Definitely adapting.
Post by Kibbu Ubik
What's the cost of adapting to a 1 metre, 2 metre .. rise in sea levels.
What's the cost of adapting to a 2C rise in temperature.
Sea level has risen about 130 meters since the trough of the last ice age,
back when the ice was 2,000+ meters thick on a good portion of the continents.
During peak Eemian 130yka, temps were 2C+ warmer and sea level 8 meters higher
than now.
When you consider the extremes of natural climate change, trying to stop SLR,
one way or the other, is completely futile.
Millions of years ago sea levels rose. So any sea level rise today is
just like that!
Chom Noamsky
2018-06-13 19:54:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Kibbu Ubik
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Wally W.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change
is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a
U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary
titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for
Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the
debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within
Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just
a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a
form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the
United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind
and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's actually no lock-in
after all?
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive>
Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do we really even
need solar and wind?”
“Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that publicly.”
...
"Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more
costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental footprint than
the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding large amounts of
solar and wind to the grid requires."
Just wait a decade.  When solar and wind further prove to be dead-end
failure tech, nuclear will undergo a massive renaissance.
Unhappily, the opportunity costs from waiting for the stench of those
brain farts to dissipate will be gigantic.
What *else* could we have been doing with the money, brainpower, and
raw materials (rare earth metals, etc.) that is being channeled down
those dead ends?
Greenies whinge about the fate of future generations (should their
imaginary catastrophe arrive) ... while they squander the inheritance
of said generations.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
"In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion.  Future generations will
wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
ridiculous."
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/merchants-of-despair
Merchants of Despair
Radical Environmentalists,
Criminal Pseudo-Scientists,
and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism
Climate change never was a mitigation problem, just like it wasn't for
all of human history.
It's an adaptation problem.
Which is cheaper mitigating or adapting?
Definitely adapting.
Post by Kibbu Ubik
What's the cost of adapting to a 1 metre, 2 metre .. rise in sea levels.
What's the cost of adapting to a 2C rise in temperature.
Sea level has risen about 130 meters since the trough of the last ice
age, back when the ice was 2,000+ meters thick on a good portion of
the continents.
During peak Eemian 130yka, temps were 2C+ warmer and sea level 8
meters higher than now.
When you consider the extremes of natural climate change, trying to
stop SLR, one way or the other, is completely futile.
Millions of years ago sea levels rose. So any sea level rise today is
just like that!
Nope, just a short 20,000 years ago.

Loading Image...
JTEM is right
2018-06-13 20:11:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chom Noamsky
Nope, just a short 20,000 years ago.
There are submerged archaeological sites, which
used to be on dry land, going back no further
than 5k years:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/undersea-archaeological-sites-hold-crucial-clues-to-ear-1644302568

Sea levels have been rising since the end of
the last glacial period. A few hundred meters
off the coast of Israel, if you dive down, you
can see an 8,000 year old village sporting what
is currently the oldest known example of a well
dug by humans.

At least it was the oldest example at the time
of it's discovery, some years back. Maybe
someone found an older one since...

Well == Fresh Water hundreds of yards off the
current coast of Israel.

When they discovered it, speculation was that it
was this well which doomed the village. That,
it was probably spoiled by salt water from the
rising sea levels, forcing the inhabitants to
pull up stakes & move on long before the coastline
overtook them...






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/174831721493
Unum
2018-06-14 18:42:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Kibbu Ubik
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Wally W.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change
is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a
U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary
titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for
Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science
and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why
the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within
Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just
a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a
form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the
United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind
and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's actually no lock-in
after all?
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive>
Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do we really even
need solar and wind?”
“Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that publicly.”
...
"Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more
costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental footprint than
the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding large amounts of
solar and wind to the grid requires."
Just wait a decade.  When solar and wind further prove to be dead-end
failure tech, nuclear will undergo a massive renaissance.
Unhappily, the opportunity costs from waiting for the stench of those
brain farts to dissipate will be gigantic.
What *else* could we have been doing with the money, brainpower, and
raw materials (rare earth metals, etc.) that is being channeled down
those dead ends?
Greenies whinge about the fate of future generations (should their
imaginary catastrophe arrive) ... while they squander the inheritance
of said generations.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
"In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion.  Future generations will
wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
ridiculous."
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/merchants-of-despair
Merchants of Despair
Radical Environmentalists,
Criminal Pseudo-Scientists,
and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism
Climate change never was a mitigation problem, just like it wasn't for
all of human history.
It's an adaptation problem.
Which is cheaper mitigating or adapting?
Definitely adapting.
Post by Kibbu Ubik
What's the cost of adapting to a 1 metre, 2 metre .. rise in sea levels.
What's the cost of adapting to a 2C rise in temperature.
Sea level has risen about 130 meters since the trough of the last ice age,
back when the ice was 2,000+ meters thick on a good portion of the continents.
During peak Eemian 130yka, temps were 2C+ warmer and sea level 8 meters
higher than now.
When you consider the extremes of natural climate change, trying to stop
SLR, one way or the other, is completely futile.
Millions of years ago sea levels rose. So any sea level rise today is
just like that!
Nope, just a short 20,000 years ago.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/slr.jpg
So why were you yapping about "peak Eemian 130yka", dimwit? Obviously
there have been climate cycles for well-documented reasons, but none
of them were the result of human GHG emissions.
Chom Noamsky
2018-06-15 23:34:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Kibbu Ubik
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Wally W.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change
is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a
U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer
Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary
titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for
Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the
debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science
and
economics have taken on some strange political
ownership. Why
the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within
Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just
a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a
form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the
United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind
and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the
US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data
shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's actually no lock-in
after all?
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive>
Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do we really even
need solar and wind?”
“Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that publicly.”
...
"Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more
costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental
footprint than
the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding large amounts of
solar and wind to the grid requires."
Just wait a decade.  When solar and wind further prove to be dead-end
failure tech, nuclear will undergo a massive renaissance.
Unhappily, the opportunity costs from waiting for the stench of those
brain farts to dissipate will be gigantic.
What *else* could we have been doing with the money, brainpower, and
raw materials (rare earth metals, etc.) that is being channeled down
those dead ends?
Greenies whinge about the fate of future generations (should their
imaginary catastrophe arrive) ... while they squander the inheritance
of said generations.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
"In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion.  Future generations will
wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
ridiculous."
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/merchants-of-despair
Merchants of Despair
Radical Environmentalists,
Criminal Pseudo-Scientists,
and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism
Climate change never was a mitigation problem, just like it wasn't for
all of human history.
It's an adaptation problem.
Which is cheaper mitigating or adapting?
Definitely adapting.
Post by Kibbu Ubik
What's the cost of adapting to a 1 metre, 2 metre .. rise in sea levels.
What's the cost of adapting to a 2C rise in temperature.
Sea level has risen about 130 meters since the trough of the last
ice age, back when the ice was 2,000+ meters thick on a good portion
of the continents.
During peak Eemian 130yka, temps were 2C+ warmer and sea level 8
meters higher than now.
When you consider the extremes of natural climate change, trying to
stop SLR, one way or the other, is completely futile.
Millions of years ago sea levels rose. So any sea level rise today is
just like that!
Nope, just a short 20,000 years ago.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/slr.jpg
So why were you yapping about "peak Eemian 130yka", dimwit? Obviously
there have been climate cycles for well-documented reasons, but none
of them were the result of human GHG emissions.
Sea Level periodically fluctuates by 120+ meters.

Do the little green goblins got a plan to stop that as well?
Unum
2018-06-16 00:47:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Kibbu Ubik
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Wally W.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change
is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a
U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary
titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for
Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science
and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why
the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within
Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just
a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a
form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the
United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind
and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data
shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's actually no
lock-in
after all?
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive>
Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do we really even
need solar and wind?”
“Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that publicly.”
...
"Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more
costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental footprint than
the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding large amounts of
solar and wind to the grid requires."
Just wait a decade.  When solar and wind further prove to be dead-end
failure tech, nuclear will undergo a massive renaissance.
Unhappily, the opportunity costs from waiting for the stench of those
brain farts to dissipate will be gigantic.
What *else* could we have been doing with the money, brainpower, and
raw materials (rare earth metals, etc.) that is being channeled down
those dead ends?
Greenies whinge about the fate of future generations (should their
imaginary catastrophe arrive) ... while they squander the inheritance
of said generations.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
"In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion.  Future generations will
wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
ridiculous."
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/merchants-of-despair
Merchants of Despair
Radical Environmentalists,
Criminal Pseudo-Scientists,
and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism
Climate change never was a mitigation problem, just like it wasn't for
all of human history.
It's an adaptation problem.
Which is cheaper mitigating or adapting?
Definitely adapting.
Post by Kibbu Ubik
What's the cost of adapting to a 1 metre, 2 metre .. rise in sea levels.
What's the cost of adapting to a 2C rise in temperature.
Sea level has risen about 130 meters since the trough of the last ice
age, back when the ice was 2,000+ meters thick on a good portion of the
continents.
During peak Eemian 130yka, temps were 2C+ warmer and sea level 8 meters
higher than now.
When you consider the extremes of natural climate change, trying to stop
SLR, one way or the other, is completely futile.
Millions of years ago sea levels rose. So any sea level rise today is
just like that!
Nope, just a short 20,000 years ago.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/slr.jpg
So why were you yapping about "peak Eemian 130yka", dimwit? Obviously
there have been climate cycles for well-documented reasons, but none
of them were the result of human GHG emissions.
Sea Level periodically fluctuates by 120+ meters.
Do the little green goblins got a plan to stop that as well?
Millions of years ago sea levels rose. So any sea level rise today is
just like that!
Wally W.
2018-06-16 04:25:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Kibbu Ubik
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Wally W.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change
is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a
U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary
titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for
Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science
and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why
the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within
Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just
a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a
form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the
United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind
and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data
shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's actually no
lock-in
after all?
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive>
Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do we really even
need solar and wind?”
“Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that publicly.”
...
"Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more
costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental footprint than
the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding large amounts of
solar and wind to the grid requires."
Just wait a decade.  When solar and wind further prove to be dead-end
failure tech, nuclear will undergo a massive renaissance.
Unhappily, the opportunity costs from waiting for the stench of those
brain farts to dissipate will be gigantic.
What *else* could we have been doing with the money, brainpower, and
raw materials (rare earth metals, etc.) that is being channeled down
those dead ends?
Greenies whinge about the fate of future generations (should their
imaginary catastrophe arrive) ... while they squander the inheritance
of said generations.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
"In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion.  Future generations will
wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
ridiculous."
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/merchants-of-despair
Merchants of Despair
Radical Environmentalists,
Criminal Pseudo-Scientists,
and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism
Climate change never was a mitigation problem, just like it wasn't for
all of human history.
It's an adaptation problem.
Which is cheaper mitigating or adapting?
Definitely adapting.
Post by Kibbu Ubik
What's the cost of adapting to a 1 metre, 2 metre .. rise in sea levels.
What's the cost of adapting to a 2C rise in temperature.
Sea level has risen about 130 meters since the trough of the last ice
age, back when the ice was 2,000+ meters thick on a good portion of the
continents.
During peak Eemian 130yka, temps were 2C+ warmer and sea level 8 meters
higher than now.
When you consider the extremes of natural climate change, trying to stop
SLR, one way or the other, is completely futile.
Millions of years ago sea levels rose. So any sea level rise today is
just like that!
Nope, just a short 20,000 years ago.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/slr.jpg
So why were you yapping about "peak Eemian 130yka", dimwit? Obviously
there have been climate cycles for well-documented reasons, but none
of them were the result of human GHG emissions.
Sea Level periodically fluctuates by 120+ meters.
Do the little green goblins got a plan to stop that as well?
Millions of years ago sea levels rose. So any sea level rise today is
just like that!
Maybe some are.

How do you know they are not?
Chom Noamsky
2018-06-17 17:24:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Kibbu Ubik
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Wally W.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate
change
is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need
to do a
U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive
officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in
Calgary
titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for
Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the
debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that
science
and
economics have taken on some strange political
ownership. Why
the
science of the left-wing is different than the science
of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within
Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey,
it's just
a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a
form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones
in the
United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables,
like wind
and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in
the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data
shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's actually no
lock-in
after all?
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive>
Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do we
really even
need solar and wind?”
“Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that publicly.”
...
"Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more
costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental footprint than
the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding large
amounts of
solar and wind to the grid requires."
Just wait a decade.  When solar and wind further prove to be dead-end
failure tech, nuclear will undergo a massive renaissance.
Unhappily, the opportunity costs from waiting for the stench of those
brain farts to dissipate will be gigantic.
What *else* could we have been doing with the money,
brainpower, and
raw materials (rare earth metals, etc.) that is being channeled down
those dead ends?
Greenies whinge about the fate of future generations (should their
imaginary catastrophe arrive) ... while they squander the inheritance
of said generations.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
"In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion.  Future generations will
wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
ridiculous."
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/merchants-of-despair
Merchants of Despair
Radical Environmentalists,
Criminal Pseudo-Scientists,
and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism
Climate change never was a mitigation problem, just like it wasn't for
all of human history.
It's an adaptation problem.
Which is cheaper mitigating or adapting?
Definitely adapting.
Post by Kibbu Ubik
What's the cost of adapting to a 1 metre, 2 metre .. rise in sea levels.
What's the cost of adapting to a 2C rise in temperature.
Sea level has risen about 130 meters since the trough of the last
ice age, back when the ice was 2,000+ meters thick on a good
portion of the continents.
During peak Eemian 130yka, temps were 2C+ warmer and sea level 8
meters higher than now.
When you consider the extremes of natural climate change, trying
to stop SLR, one way or the other, is completely futile.
Millions of years ago sea levels rose. So any sea level rise today is
just like that!
Nope, just a short 20,000 years ago.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/slr.jpg
So why were you yapping about "peak Eemian 130yka", dimwit? Obviously
there have been climate cycles for well-documented reasons, but none
of them were the result of human GHG emissions.
Sea Level periodically fluctuates by 120+ meters.
Do the little green goblins got a plan to stop that as well?
Millions of years ago sea levels rose. So any sea level rise today is
just like that!
Nope, just 20,000 years ago it was 120+ meters lower.
Unum
2018-06-17 19:59:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Kibbu Ubik
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Wally W.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change
is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a
U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary
titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for
Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the
debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science
and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why
the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within
Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just
a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a
form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the
United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind
and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the
US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data
shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's actually no
lock-in
after all?
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive>
Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do we really
even
need solar and wind?”
“Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that publicly.”
...
"Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more
costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental footprint than
the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding large amounts of
solar and wind to the grid requires."
Just wait a decade.  When solar and wind further prove to be dead-end
failure tech, nuclear will undergo a massive renaissance.
Unhappily, the opportunity costs from waiting for the stench of those
brain farts to dissipate will be gigantic.
What *else* could we have been doing with the money, brainpower, and
raw materials (rare earth metals, etc.) that is being channeled down
those dead ends?
Greenies whinge about the fate of future generations (should their
imaginary catastrophe arrive) ... while they squander the inheritance
of said generations.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
"In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion.  Future generations will
wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
ridiculous."
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/merchants-of-despair
Merchants of Despair
Radical Environmentalists,
Criminal Pseudo-Scientists,
and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism
Climate change never was a mitigation problem, just like it wasn't for
all of human history.
It's an adaptation problem.
Which is cheaper mitigating or adapting?
Definitely adapting.
Post by Kibbu Ubik
What's the cost of adapting to a 1 metre, 2 metre .. rise in sea levels.
What's the cost of adapting to a 2C rise in temperature.
Sea level has risen about 130 meters since the trough of the last ice
age, back when the ice was 2,000+ meters thick on a good portion of the
continents.
During peak Eemian 130yka, temps were 2C+ warmer and sea level 8 meters
higher than now.
When you consider the extremes of natural climate change, trying to
stop SLR, one way or the other, is completely futile.
Millions of years ago sea levels rose. So any sea level rise today is
just like that!
Nope, just a short 20,000 years ago.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/slr.jpg
So why were you yapping about "peak Eemian 130yka", dimwit? Obviously
there have been climate cycles for well-documented reasons, but none
of them were the result of human GHG emissions.
Sea Level periodically fluctuates by 120+ meters.
Do the little green goblins got a plan to stop that as well?
Millions of years ago sea levels rose. So any sea level rise today is
just like that!
Nope, just 20,000 years ago it was 120+ meters lower.
So why were you yapping about "peak Eemian 130yka", dimwit? Obviously
there have been climate cycles for well-documented reasons, but none
of them were the result of human GHG emissions.
R Kym Horsell
2018-06-17 20:36:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Millions of years ago sea levels rose. So any sea level rise today is
just like that!
Nope, just 20,000 years ago it was 120+ meters lower.
So why were you yapping about "peak Eemian 130yka", dimwit? Obviously
there have been climate cycles for well-documented reasons, but none
of them were the result of human GHG emissions.
Hillbillies gotta keep their "always been same SLR" mythology going somehow.
--
How did sea level evolve?
The graph shows how sea level changed over the past 2000 years. There are
four phases:
* Stable sea level from 200 BC until 1000 AD
* A 400-year rise by about 6 cm per century up to 1400 AD
* Another stable period from 1400 AD up to the late 19th C
* A rapid rise by about 20 cm since.

<Loading Image...>
[With 1950 == 0, sea level was around 20 cm lower 2000 ya].

Sea level evolution in North Carolina from proxy data (blue curve with
uncertainty range). Local land subsidence is already removed. The
green curve shows measurements from a nearby tide gauge a
reconstruction based on tide gauges from around the world (Jevrejeva
et al. 2006, 2008). The red curve shows results from a simple model
connecting global temperature with sea level. For the last millennium
the sea level curve follows what can be expected from temperature -
the two independent reconstructions thus mutually reinforce each other
by their consistency. Before 1000 AD there is a discrepancy: warm
temperatures in the reconstruction used would lead to rising sea
level, but the sea level reconstruction is flat. However, temperature
data from before 1000 AD are sparse and less reliable, and lowering
temperatures in this period by only 0.2?C removes the
discrepancy. Thus, a possible explanation for the discrepancy is that
the temperature reconstruction is a little too warm before 1000 AD.
Chom Noamsky
2018-06-18 00:49:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Kibbu Ubik
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Wally W.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says
climate change
is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need
to do a
U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive
officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in
Calgary
titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies
for
Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how
the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me
that science
and
economics have taken on some strange political
ownership. Why
the
science of the left-wing is different than the
science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within
Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey,
it's just
a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service
as a
form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the
ones in the
United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables,
like wind
and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in
the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy
agenda, data
shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's actually no
lock-in
after all?
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive>
Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do we
really even
need solar and wind?”
“Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that publicly.”
...
"Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more
costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental
footprint than
the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding large
amounts of
solar and wind to the grid requires."
Just wait a decade.  When solar and wind further prove to be
dead-end
failure tech, nuclear will undergo a massive renaissance.
Unhappily, the opportunity costs from waiting for the stench of those
brain farts to dissipate will be gigantic.
What *else* could we have been doing with the money,
brainpower, and
raw materials (rare earth metals, etc.) that is being channeled down
those dead ends?
Greenies whinge about the fate of future generations (should their
imaginary catastrophe arrive) ... while they squander the inheritance
of said generations.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
"In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion.  Future generations will
wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
ridiculous."
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/merchants-of-despair
Merchants of Despair
Radical Environmentalists,
Criminal Pseudo-Scientists,
and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism
Climate change never was a mitigation problem, just like it wasn't for
all of human history.
It's an adaptation problem.
Which is cheaper mitigating or adapting?
Definitely adapting.
Post by Kibbu Ubik
What's the cost of adapting to a 1 metre, 2 metre .. rise in sea levels.
What's the cost of adapting to a 2C rise in temperature.
Sea level has risen about 130 meters since the trough of the
last ice age, back when the ice was 2,000+ meters thick on a
good portion of the continents.
During peak Eemian 130yka, temps were 2C+ warmer and sea level 8
meters higher than now.
When you consider the extremes of natural climate change, trying
to stop SLR, one way or the other, is completely futile.
Millions of years ago sea levels rose. So any sea level rise today is
just like that!
Nope, just a short 20,000 years ago.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/slr.jpg
So why were you yapping about "peak Eemian 130yka", dimwit? Obviously
there have been climate cycles for well-documented reasons, but none
of them were the result of human GHG emissions.
Sea Level periodically fluctuates by 120+ meters.
Do the little green goblins got a plan to stop that as well?
Millions of years ago sea levels rose. So any sea level rise today is
just like that!
Nope, just 20,000 years ago it was 120+ meters lower.
So why were you yapping about "peak Eemian 130yka", dimwit? Obviously
there have been climate cycles for well-documented reasons, but none
of them were the result of human GHG emissions.
What the little green goblins gonna do to stop the rise and fall of 120+
meters?
Unum
2018-06-18 04:24:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Kibbu Ubik
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Wally W.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change
is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a
U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer
Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary
titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for
Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the
debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that
science
and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership.
Why
the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of
the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within
Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just
a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a
form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the
United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind
and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the
US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data
shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's actually no
lock-in
after all?
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive>
Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do we
really even
need solar and wind?”
“Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that publicly.”
...
"Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more
costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental footprint
than
the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding large
amounts of
solar and wind to the grid requires."
Just wait a decade.  When solar and wind further prove to be
dead-end
failure tech, nuclear will undergo a massive renaissance.
Unhappily, the opportunity costs from waiting for the stench of those
brain farts to dissipate will be gigantic.
What *else* could we have been doing with the money, brainpower, and
raw materials (rare earth metals, etc.) that is being channeled down
those dead ends?
Greenies whinge about the fate of future generations (should their
imaginary catastrophe arrive) ... while they squander the inheritance
of said generations.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
"In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion.  Future generations will
wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
ridiculous."
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/merchants-of-despair
Merchants of Despair
Radical Environmentalists,
Criminal Pseudo-Scientists,
and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism
Climate change never was a mitigation problem, just like it wasn't for
all of human history.
It's an adaptation problem.
Which is cheaper mitigating or adapting?
Definitely adapting.
Post by Kibbu Ubik
What's the cost of adapting to a 1 metre, 2 metre .. rise in sea levels.
What's the cost of adapting to a 2C rise in temperature.
Sea level has risen about 130 meters since the trough of the last ice
age, back when the ice was 2,000+ meters thick on a good portion of
the continents.
During peak Eemian 130yka, temps were 2C+ warmer and sea level 8
meters higher than now.
When you consider the extremes of natural climate change, trying to
stop SLR, one way or the other, is completely futile.
Millions of years ago sea levels rose. So any sea level rise today is
just like that!
Nope, just a short 20,000 years ago.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/slr.jpg
So why were you yapping about "peak Eemian 130yka", dimwit? Obviously
there have been climate cycles for well-documented reasons, but none
of them were the result of human GHG emissions.
Sea Level periodically fluctuates by 120+ meters.
Do the little green goblins got a plan to stop that as well?
Millions of years ago sea levels rose. So any sea level rise today is
just like that!
Nope, just 20,000 years ago it was 120+ meters lower.
So why were you yapping about "peak Eemian 130yka", dimwit? Obviously
there have been climate cycles for well-documented reasons, but none
of them were the result of human GHG emissions.
What the little green goblins gonna do to stop the rise and fall of 120+ meters?
Why do extremist nutjobs in canada want sea level to rise 120+ meters?
Chom Noamsky
2018-06-18 22:37:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Kibbu Ubik
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Wally W.
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says
climate change
is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians,
need to do a
U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive
officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in
Calgary
titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public
Policies for
Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how
the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me
that science
and
economics have taken on some strange political
ownership. Why
the
science of the left-wing is different than the
science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly
within
Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey,
it's just
a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip
service as a
form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the
ones in the
United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables,
like wind
and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down
in the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy
agenda, data
shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's
actually no
lock-in
after all?
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive>
Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do
we really even
need solar and wind?”
“Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that
publicly.”
...
"Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that
are more
costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental
footprint than
the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding
large amounts of
solar and wind to the grid requires."
Just wait a decade.  When solar and wind further prove to
be dead-end
failure tech, nuclear will undergo a massive renaissance.
Unhappily, the opportunity costs from waiting for the
stench of those
brain farts to dissipate will be gigantic.
What *else* could we have been doing with the money,
brainpower, and
raw materials (rare earth metals, etc.) that is being
channeled down
those dead ends?
Greenies whinge about the fate of future generations (should their
imaginary catastrophe arrive) ... while they squander the
inheritance
of said generations.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
"In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion.  Future
generations will
wonder how so many people could have believed something so
suicidally
ridiculous."
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/merchants-of-despair
Merchants of Despair
Radical Environmentalists,
Criminal Pseudo-Scientists,
and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism
Climate change never was a mitigation problem, just like it
wasn't for
all of human history.
It's an adaptation problem.
Which is cheaper mitigating or adapting?
Definitely adapting.
Post by Kibbu Ubik
What's the cost of adapting to a 1 metre, 2 metre .. rise in
sea levels.
What's the cost of adapting to a 2C rise in temperature.
Sea level has risen about 130 meters since the trough of the
last ice age, back when the ice was 2,000+ meters thick on a
good portion of the continents.
During peak Eemian 130yka, temps were 2C+ warmer and sea level
8 meters higher than now.
When you consider the extremes of natural climate change,
trying to stop SLR, one way or the other, is completely futile.
Millions of years ago sea levels rose. So any sea level rise today is
just like that!
Nope, just a short 20,000 years ago.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/slr.jpg
So why were you yapping about "peak Eemian 130yka", dimwit? Obviously
there have been climate cycles for well-documented reasons, but none
of them were the result of human GHG emissions.
Sea Level periodically fluctuates by 120+ meters.
Do the little green goblins got a plan to stop that as well?
Millions of years ago sea levels rose. So any sea level rise today is
just like that!
Nope, just 20,000 years ago it was 120+ meters lower.
So why were you yapping about "peak Eemian 130yka", dimwit? Obviously
there have been climate cycles for well-documented reasons, but none
of them were the result of human GHG emissions.
What the little green goblins gonna do to stop the rise and fall of 120+ meters?
Why do extremist nutjobs in canada want sea level to rise 120+ meters?
Yer so flapped yer incoherent.

JTEM is right
2018-06-13 19:56:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Millions of years ago sea levels rose.
No, you idiot, sea level hasn't been stable in
millions of years. It's been rising & falling
DRAMATICALLY throughout the Quaternary Period,
with the comings & goings of the glacial periods.
The only thing to stop this dramatic changes
would be to end the current "Ice Age," which
would stabilize sea levels & temperatures at the
HIGHER end of the scale, not the lower and
not the middle.

...and even ending the ice age would probably
take as much as a few hundred thousand years
before restoring the earth to it's pre ice age
(higher) norms...



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/174831721493
Unum
2018-06-14 18:49:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM is right
Post by Unum
Millions of years ago sea levels rose.
No, you idiot, sea level hasn't been stable in
millions of years. It's been rising & falling
I didn't say it has been stable, you sad little moron.
JTEM is right
2018-06-14 18:56:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
I didn't say it has been stable
You are misrepresenting a change as only
ever resulting from human intervention,
and only ever resulting in climate
catastrophe. It is the very point you're
trying to make here!

Fact is, if we restored the planet to it's
pre ice age norms the temperatures would
stabilize much higher than they are now, and
sea level would stabilize hundreds of feet
higher than they currently are.

If we don't do it, of course, we can look
forward to millions of more years of radical
changes to the climate, as the glacial /
interglacial cycle continues...








-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/174863780573
Unum
2018-06-14 23:59:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM is right
Post by Unum
I didn't say it has been stable
You are misrepresenting a change as only
ever resulting from human intervention,
and only ever resulting in climate
catastrophe. It is the very point you're
trying to make here!
Absolutely not, and I have never seen anyone make
that claim. If I ever need some brainless little
fruitcake on the internet to put words in my mouth
I'll let you know.
JTEM is right
2018-06-15 00:53:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by JTEM is right
You are misrepresenting a change as only
ever resulting from human intervention,
and only ever resulting in climate
catastrophe. It is the very point you're
trying to make here!
Absolutely not
Liar. Liar. Your pants are on fire.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/174863780573
Chom Noamsky
2018-06-15 23:36:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM is right
Post by Unum
Post by JTEM is right
You are misrepresenting a change as only
ever resulting from human intervention,
and only ever resulting in climate
catastrophe. It is the very point you're
trying to make here!
Absolutely not
Liar. Liar. Your pants are on fire.
I'm allays amazed and the intellectual contortions these zealots put
themselves through. Sea level naturally fluctuates by 120+ meters, but
a change of one meter is the end of the world.
JTEM is right
2018-06-13 15:38:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
What *else* could we have been doing with the money, brainpower, and
raw materials (rare earth metals, etc.) that is being channeled down
those dead ends?
Greenies whinge about the fate of future generations (should their
imaginary catastrophe arrive) ... while they squander the inheritance
of said generations.
Probably at least part of this wind/solar nonsense
is meant to dispel the myth.

Look. People are morons. They pick a side and then
root for their "Team" as if it were a soccer match
or baseball game. So maybe the only way we're ever
going to move past the broken promises of wind &
solar is if the morons actually see their "Team"
compete and lose. Maybe they need to witness their
failure first, before accepting the things that
need to be done.

No matter what, MAKE IT ABOUT THEIR FAILURE. Wind
and solar are failures so turn this into an
experiment that falsify their claims. Turn it into
something that withdraws them from the debate so
that the focus can be placed on real problems and
solutions.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/174831721493
Unum
2018-06-13 16:16:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's actually no lock-in
after all?
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive>
Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do we really even
need solar and wind?”
“Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that publicly.”
...
"Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more
costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental footprint than
the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding large amounts of
solar and wind to the grid requires."
Just wait a decade.  When solar and wind further prove to be dead-end failure
tech, nuclear will undergo a massive renaissance.
When pigs grow wings they will fly!
Chom Noamsky
2018-06-13 19:57:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the
United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind and solar,
because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's actually no lock-in
after all?
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive>
Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do we really even
need solar and wind?”
“Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that publicly.”
...
"Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more
costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental footprint than
the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding large amounts of
solar and wind to the grid requires."
Just wait a decade.  When solar and wind further prove to be dead-end
failure tech, nuclear will undergo a massive renaissance.
When pigs grow wings they will fly!
"... Trump will NEVER get elected ..."
Chom Noamsky
2018-06-13 03:59:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by gordo
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers
The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed
by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn
and accept it.
Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve
Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary titled
Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and
Environment in Canada — said he's unhappy with how the debate on
climate change has become so polarizing.
"It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and
economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the
science of the left-wing is different than the science of the
right-wing. Why it's not possible for, certainly within Canada for
conservatives, to take a conversation about, 'Hey, it's just a fact.
Let's get some facts out on the table,'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549
All the oil companies are doing is paying lip service as a form of CYA.
Protects them against frivolous lawsuits like the ones in the United States.
The truth is fossil fuel companies LOVE renewables, like wind and
solar, because they lock-in fossil fuels forever and ever.
Is that why so many coal plants have been shut down in the US, and
no new ones are ever likely to be built?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg
"U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data shows"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU
So there's actually no lock-in after all?
"Solar And Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
Lol, some guy wants nukes to save the day. So there's actually no lock-in
after all?
You may go back under your rock now.
Loading...