There is no non-modeled or long-term data that demonstrates with any surety what the unhinged 'climate alarmists' claim Re: 'imminent' climate change. It also in no way demonstrates that the causes for fluctuations over time are due principally to regular everyday human activity.
I see you're attempting to flip the 'wait' on me. Significant citings were shared in prior pages that you've yet to address directly, other than flippant hand-waving because part of it was included in an academic paper/report submitted by a PhD, or otherwise they weren't scientists that you, DrEvil, approve of, because their titles or roles don't meet the criteria required of the High Priests of The Science.
As if valid points or findings can only be spoken by certain specific individuals approved by those with the hubris to believe special 'experts' are infallible, or far less susceptible to flaws.
So much of the dominant narratives that claim to be 'science' are little more than a house of cards, balanced on shaky ground until the next strong gust of wind passes by. The dogma is not sustainable. It never is.
*This is not to say 'alternative' science isn't also subject to flaws. Of course it is. But that's what any sound science is: never fully confident, always revisiting. Never static.
There is no non-modeled or long-term data that demonstrates with any surety what the unhinged 'climate alarmists' claim Re: 'imminent' climate change. It also in no way demonstrates that the causes for fluctuations over time are due principally to regular everyday human activity.
This is bullshit. We've been modeling this shit for decades, and we've been able to take actual measurements and compare them to previous models, and surprise! They match. Is every model perfect? Of course not. If anything they've been underestimating the rate of change we're observing. Also: have you seen the news the last few years? There's nothing but record breaking natural disasters happening all over the fucking planet. That's what people in the business call "a hint". You don't need a model to see that something is seriously off.
I see you're attempting to flip the 'wait' on me. Significant citings were shared in prior pages that you've yet to address directly, other than flippant hand-waving because part of it was included in an academic paper/report submitted by a PhD, or otherwise they weren't scientists that you, DrEvil, approve of, because their titles or roles don't meet the criteria required of the High Priests of The Science.
For the nth fucking time, it's not an academic paper or a report, it's the class notes for a volunteer class assistant who volunteered to do a lecture for retired people. His PhD is irrelevant since we don't have a fucking clue what it's in. He's just some random dude with a pet project who cherry-picked a ton of data from a bunch of well known deniers and skeptics and lumped it all into two hundred plus pages of notes. If there's anything worthwhile in there then post it already.
And the only criteria I've been asking you for over the last several pages and weeks is that it's science by scientists, preferably climate scientists, not just some random dude's opinion (honestly, that seems to be the only criteria you operate by: that the person talking is not an expert in what they're talking about), yet you've been unable to post anything to back your claims.
As if valid points or findings can only be spoken by certain specific individuals approved by those with the hubris to believe special 'experts' are infallible, or far less susceptible to flaws.
This is so moronic I barely have words. Let me spell it out for you: OF COURSE EXPERTS IN A SPECIFIC FIELD KNOW MORE ABOUT IT THAN NON-EXPERTS. Jesus Christ! That's why they're called experts. They studied it and do it for a living. It's why you go to a car mechanic to fix your car and a neurosurgeon to have brain surgery, because the odds are pretty damn good that they know more about their respective fields than some rando off the street. Fucking hell man, this is kindergarten level stuff.
So much of the dominant narratives that claim to be 'science' are little more than a house of cards, balanced on shaky ground until the next strong gust of wind passes by. The dogma is not sustainable. It never is.
And yet you keep being unable to post anything serious to back this claim up.
*This is not to say 'alternative' science isn't also subject to flaws. Of course it is. But that's what any sound science is: never fully confident, always revisiting. Never static.
Climate science is revisited all the time. The IPCC summarizes the state of it every six or seven years, and they keep getting more and more sure that it's us as the data is updated and refined (and once again, remember that this has to be signed off on by every country in the UN, so it's the conservative estimate, not wild-eyed doom-saying). What you seem to be saying is that because they keep reaching the same conclusions, only with greater confidence than last time, they're somehow doing something wrong.
This graphic summarizes it well:
Yes, it does. The right-hand side almost perfectly matches all of your sources.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
Why does that remind me so much as Donald Trump's little hand?
Thank you for making such a comprehensive archive of crap, Belligerent Savant. No doubt you have spent hours doing the research and posts, granted the internet is rich in such material.
But he's not wrong. This entire thread is a greatest hits of oil funded* denier bullshit. There's probably a more polite way to say that, but that's what it is. It's the same old bullshit from the same old bullshit artists, repackaged and resold as new and shiny, but with the same rotten core of obfuscation, lies, cherry picking and ignorance.
Also, he's talking shit about the content, not the poster. There's some sarcasm, but I don't think we have a rule against that (God, I hope not).
* Incidentally the only conspiracy being consistently ignored. You know, the one we know for a fact is real. Weather manipulation? Sure! All the climate scientists being incompetent or liars or both? Totally! Oil companies spreading propaganda and lies to protect their bottom line? Inconceivable!
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
. The comments by PufPuf and DrEvil (who is increasingly coming off here in RI as a cartoon character, or someone tragically stuck in a pre-21st century mindset of how the world works -- mildly notable that neither have commented in the coronavirus main thread for a while, as they seem to be too proud to admit how egregiously wrong they were on certain key aspects of that particular ongoing global mindfuck. In this regard they are far from alone) don't help contribute useful content to this thread.
Selective, drive-by, non-substantive 'criticism' (I'm being charitable calling it that) of certain bits of info I share here -- and as I've made clear many times, I never indicate to subscribe fully to all this content, and in fact typically include disclaimers such as, "for added consideration", etc.; some of the content will be more valuable or worthy of assessment than others, of course -- is a strawman tactic that skirts around the the core issues/problems with much of the dominant/mainstream talking points Re: "climate change".
"Clean Energy" is, in many ways, a scam. It's neither "clean" nor a sustainable source of energy, and further, requires extensive use of traditional fuel (gas, oil, etc.) in order to function. The average human is being hoodwinked.
Of course, this is by no means an indication that the 'fossil fuel' industry isn't largely compromised and corrupted, as it's been for some time.
There are alternative solutions out there (e g. Nuclear power; efficient, less wasteful and complimentary usage of wind/solar/water/electricity AND traditional fuel sources, etc.). The dominant narratives and power brokers are NOT exploring them, for the most part, however. Instead, the focus is on power accumulation, control, and greed. Ever thus (but with a marked uptick since 2001).
Critical thinking is increasingly important in this 21st Century (stating the obvious). Nothing should be accepted at face value anymore.
In line with the above, I welcome counters to the following informative thread.We need to start looking 'under the hood', intently, at any/all proposed solutions to today's global issues. Clearly, this isn't relegated to "climate change" alone.
COPPER thread redux. I live near one of the largest copper mines on earth (Kennecott Utah Copper - KUC). I helped manage a smaller copper mine for 8 years. Observation: Wind/Solar/Battery Proponents & ESG bean-counters are completely out of touch with copper mining & production.
CIVILIZATION’s very first metal was COPPER, eventually surpassed in importance by iron and steel. But with Edison and Tesla, world demand for copper became nearly infinite. Butte, MT held the world's highest-grade copper resources. And the whole world came to Butte TO MINE COPPER
Several lines of my family converged in Butte from as far away as Croatia, Cornwall, and North Carolina - to mine copper. My grandparents met there during WW2 (grandpa was at the USN OTS, School of Mines). My mother was born in Butte. I know a thing or two about it.
The so-called energy “transition” (energiewende) is a copper monster. The resulting demand for copper far exceeds anything the world has ever seen before—even during the electrification heyday (1870 onward).
For instance, a 3-MW wind turbine contains up to 4.7 TONS of copper Onshore wind farms use approximately 7,766 lbs. (3.883 TONS) of copper per MW. Offshore wind farms use over 21k pounds per MW (10.5 tons). PER MW nameplate.
Solar power systems use abt 5.5 tons of copper per MW (heat exchangers of solar plus wiring and cabling that transmits the electricity in PV cells). 262 GW of new solar installations between 2018 and 2027 in North America alone = 1.9 billion lbs. of copper.
But the new demand for copper is driven by far more than wind turbines. So let’s walk through a high-level, simplified explanation of what modern copper production requires.
Put on a hospital gown because we're going under the scalpel. Here's the new and totally unnecessary interstate transmission system that's going to cost ratepayers billions for garbage power we don't need. /16 Source: S&P Commodity Insights
COPPER mining starts with drilling. Drill rigs runs on DIESEL fuel. And they burn a lot. In copper mines, fleets of drills run in shifts, often 24/7. The drills require tires, lubricating oil, grease, dust control systems, and sophisticated electronics, maintenance, etc.
STRIP RATIO means the number of WASTE ROCK benches that need to be drilled, blasted, loaded, hauled, and dumped, compared to the number of ORE benches the stripping will open up. Strip ratios vary widely from mine to mine and phase to phase. Strip can be as high as 15.5:1.
The strip ratio at volcanic massive sulfide deposits like KUC are usually above 5:1. And that means lots of TUNGSTEN OXIDE drill bits. The lifecycle assessment for tungsten oxide production is not pretty. It's mostly made in China, home of hundreds of coal power plants.
Larger patterns usually work for waste but ore needs crushing, so drill patterns are tighter. Regardless, copper mining means drilling lots of holes through hard rock. It can take weeks or months to drill out a single BENCH (a defined block in the pit). https://www.rpmdrilling.co.za/blast-hol ... g-process/
Then comes the fun part: BLASTING. Ammonium Nitrate / Fuel Oil -ANFO- is the primary blasting agent. It's 94% ammonium nitrate with diesel fuel oil. AN is manufactured from methane and requires a great deal of fossil fuel energy and associated emissions.
It is not coincidental that the Nobel Prize carries that name. Alfred Nobel's weird trick (dynamite) altered the course of humanity in countless ways, from War, to the petro-chemical industry, to mining.
After blasting, all shot material (waste or ore) has to be loaded into haul trucks and moved out of the pit. Waste is dumped; ore is loaded into the crusher. It's impossible to quantify the net-net fossil fuel resources consumed up to this step. The scale is enormous.
EACH tire weighs 12,000 pounds and is made with nearly 100% PETRO-CHEMICAL feedstocks (hundreds of ingredients) and 100% FOSSIL ENERGY. Black=carbon black. Tires are NOT RECYCLABLE. And they don't last that long. KUC has its own tire landfill.
Steel to manufacture the equipment; tires; lubricating oil; grease; fuel; maintenance; batteries; wear steel; moving things around the world (importing trucks from Korea), mobilization, and demobilization - 100% consumptive just to drill, blast, pick up, and move rock.
Ore has to be crushed. The scale of this equipment is hard to describe. The fossil fuel and other inputs that went into this single crusher in one copper mine - and associated CO2 and other impacts - much less the power to run it - are enormous. Constant maintenance- replacement.
A childhood friend of mine has been a KUC equipment operator for decades. These trucks consume some 92 gallons of DIESEL fuel every HOUR, whether they're moving or not. KUC has a fleet running 24/7/365.
Next, milling & grinding. Sulfide ore is hard and must be milled down to a fine sand. Each ball/SAG mill is rated in thousands of horsepower (a SINGLE ball mill = 16k HP). Can't mill ore with weather-power. Mills operate 24/7/365.
We aren't even close to being done. After milling and grinding, the ore must be concentrated and tailings floated. At KUC, this requires pumping millions of gallons of water slurry many miles, requiring enormous quantities of dependable electrical energy (coal-gas).
Tailings are concentrator waste. The KUC tailings pond enormous. Its construction to date has required moving BILLIONS of tons of soil, rock, clay, and engineered cover (tens of millions of tons of processed, washed, screened, and imported sand and gravel).
It would be impossible to accurately quantify, today, the true fossil fuel requirements associated just with this one impoundment, its construction, maintenance, and reclamation. We won't know for years yet its final size / configuration. Reclamation is DECADES in the future. Concentrates (24% Cu) are smelted using COAL. No other fuel will do. Sulfide ore is high in sulfur, making KUC an important sulfuric acid producer. Acid is sold for mining other (acid soluble) copper and uranium, making phosphate fertilizer, and other processes.
The ore at KUC is sulfide—not acid soluble. But the ore at the mine I helped manage is heap-leached very efficiently using KUC acid derived from sulfide ore. Industrial operations are efficient and symbiotic.
During smelting, the concentrates turn to “lava” and self-separate based on elemental specific gravity. Silica sand and other fluxing minerals form a “froth” at the top and are tapped/removed to form slag. Metal values from the smelter are then removed.
We still have a ways to go. Purification and separation of smelted metals and other valuable byproducts requires many more steps. Volumes have been written about KUC, one of the world’s most important mineral sources. This thread is an extreme oversimplification.
For copper, the process is Electrowinning. Metal values are dissolved in H2SO4 and then plated out in to form CATHODE plates. This step consumes vast quantities of electrical energy. TO BE SURE, because it is CHEAP, EW plants often utilize wind-solar power (e.g. load shedding).
The fact that mining companies use load shedding agreements to soak up excess, garbage power is not a compliment. It's because the value of wind-solar to the grid is so low that utilities have to pay to get rid of it.
The end result of the entire mining process is new cathode copper. I directly challenge analysts calculating lifecycle impacts of wind-solar-batteries to account for the fossil fuel and carbon impacts expended in producing new cathode copper. 100% consumptive.
Only the best, highest-quality (purity) copper cathode meets the specs for generators like those used in wind turbines. The wire must be rolled thin and long; any imperfections in the cathode result in broken wires. Turning cathode into wire requires yet more FOSSIL ENERGY. Cathode is shipped from the mine to a rod mill (sometimes thousands of miles, including interim warehousing). At the rod mill, it's melted in an electric arc furnace (dispatchable power). Can't run an EAF on solar.
99.9% purity virgin cathode is prized by rod mill buyers. Wire gauge (thickness) governs resistance and other technical factors involving all generators. The thinner the wire, the more energy required and the higher the purity of the feed. Limited high-quality scrap can be used
And that's just the COPPER.
COPPER ORE GRADES: Copper sources have driven humanity since prehistoric times, especially Iberia and Cornwall. Advanced Roman metallurgy allowed them to flourish. One of my family lines came to Butte, MT from Cornwall - to mine copper. His Cornish ancestors dated to the Romans
Since Roman times, copper ore grades have been decreasing, astronomically so since Edison's and Tesla's inventions electrified the planet. This is a function of the natural occurrence of copper in earth's crust and the cost of extracting it. Commodity economics. BUTTE:
There are only 23 mines in the USA mining copper. The largest is Kennecott, which has large volumes of low-grade ore. Daniel C. Jackling was the first to figure out how to use large-scale equipment to get the low-grade to pay. Current ore grade reserves at KUC are 0.47%.
Why does grade matter? The essential CARBON energy required to extract one pound of copper cathode go up as grade decreases. Today's ore was yesterday's waste rock. BTW, Jackling's breakthrough? The COAL-powered steam shovel.
BHP, the world’s third largest copper producer, estimated that grade decline could remove about 2 million metric tons per year (mt/y) of refined copper supply by 2030, with resource depletion potentially removing an additional 1.5 million to 2.25 million mt/y by this date.
The only way to produce the same tons of Cu per year is to mine and process even that much more ore and strip that much more waste. Hard to believe you can't mine and process copper with windmills and solar panels. You need OCEANS of Petroleum, coal & such. TO BE SURE, our ability to be able to economically recover copper from increasingly-declining grades of ore is a modern marvel, driven nearly 100% by ABUNDANT, CHEAP CARBON ENERGY. But declining grades are just a throughput issue. More mining; more hauling; more tailings etc.
The so-called energy “transition” is expected to DOUBLE the world demand for COPPER in the next 10 years. As large as it is, KUC only supplies 1% of world copper demand. FANTASY: the world will create 100 MORE KUC-scale operations in a decade.
The World's large porphyry copper deposits are all known and most have been depleted or are nearing depletion, including KUC. Declining ore grades explain the vast impact footprints (Peru depicted).
But new demand will NOT result in a copper shortage, rather a shortage of AFFORDABLE copper. Copper will simply inflate till its cost matches copper’s next most economical substitution: ALUMINUM. https://www.windpowerengineering.com/al ... ternative/
Aluminum is a good conductor albeit with different properties and limitations (such as electric motor windings - Al is too brittle). Al is already used for wires. The primary impediment is simply cost. Compared to copper, production of Aluminum requires EVEN MORE COST AND CARBON
Al has 61 percent of the conductivity of copper, but has only 30 percent of the weight but both can be used in many applications. Substitution is happening and will continue to happen. BUT that does not mean Al has a lower carbon footprint. ALL of the copper mined on earth prior to wind/solar energy was essential to civilization for uses unrelated to wind/solar. Copper requirements will continue and will even expand with technology development. INFLATING the cost of copper to match aluminum harms civilization. IF Aluminium were better than copper, civilization would have already switched. SO, doubling the demand for conductive metals will just result in INFLATION. Everything electric will just cost that much more. Inflation PRODUCTION Act much?
Yet, affordable copper abundance is simple. A single high-grade copper mine can change the world (such as Iberia and Cornwall for copper/tin and Petosi, Bolivia for silver). Thank Mother Nature. And the USA has two: Resolution Copper in AZ and Pebble in Alaska.
Resolution is one of the largest undeveloped copper projects in the world and has the potential to quite quickly become the largest copper producer in North America. The Resolution resource is high-grade, vast, and deep underground. NO OPEN PIT
Remember, high grade ores mean the LOWEST CARBON FOOTPRINT. So, naturally, the same groups frantic to stop Climate Change via massive deployment of wind/solar/batteries SUPPORT the opening of such a rare, world-class, high-grade copper resource. Well, not so much.
It's hard to describe the internal amusement I experience every time a Wind/Solar/Battery advocate lectures me about the imminent depletion of uranium and thorium, while ignoring tiny details like COPPER and the perpetual CARBON ENERGY it requires. Windmills Forever!
Like this guy and his 22k followers.
And the @InsulateGB movement
B.F. Randall @Mining_Atoms
"Insulate Britain" is a laudable movement in many respects. The best insulation materials humans have ever devised are manufactured from spun glass and rock fibers (fiberglass and rock wool) and are far superior to Anglo-Saxon wattle & daub.
Fortunately for humanity, there is a far better solution that will not require any increase to normal worldwide mineral production rates nor result in mineral inflation. Its net-net fossil fuel inputs are de-minimis. That solution is nuclear power (fast reactor is + 27x)
In the '70s world energy crisis, France overbuilt and had to scramble to find buyers and to electrify everything. That's real economic growth. Imagine that! Abundant, affordable energy FIRST; electrify everything SECOND. Today it's energy poverty first then electrify nothing.
For more information, I highly endorse this podcast on the mineral requirements and other real-world implications of energy, wind/solar/batteries: The Last Optimist https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t ... 1608377288
I also endorse @DecoupleMedia and the outstanding work of @Dr_Keefer, including several episodes with Mark P. Mills.
Decouple Apr 11, 2021
Magical Thinking, Moore's Law, and Energy feat. Mark P Mills
Belligerent Savant » Thu Oct 27, 2022 3:47 pm wrote:. The comments by PufPuf and DrEvil (who is increasingly coming off here in RI as a cartoon character, or someone tragically stuck in a pre-21st century mindset of how the world works -- mildly notable that neither have commented in the coronavirus main thread for a while, as they seem to be too proud to admit how egregiously wrong they were on certain key aspects of that particular ongoing global mindfuck. In this regard they are far from alone) don't help contribute useful content to this thread.
Selective, drive-by, non-substantive 'criticism' (I'm being charitable calling it that) of certain bits of info I share here -- and as I've made clear many times, I never indicate to subscribe fully to all this content, and in fact typically include disclaimers such as, "for added consideration", etc.; some of the content will be more valuable or worthy of assessment than others, of course -- is a strawman tactic that skirts around the the core issues/problems with much of the dominant/mainstream talking points Re: "climate change".
I've commented on and criticized plenty of what you've posted in this thread, and you usually ignore it and/or repeat the same things over again. I'm still waiting for you to post research backing your claims about the inaccuracy of the models and the degree to which we are responsible for the observed warming.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
Belligerent Savant » Thu Oct 27, 2022 3:47 pm wrote:. The comments by PufPuf and DrEvil (who is increasingly coming off here in RI as a cartoon character, or someone tragically stuck in a pre-21st century mindset of how the world works -- mildly notable that neither have commented in the coronavirus main thread for a while, as they seem to be too proud to admit how egregiously wrong they were on certain key aspects of that particular ongoing global mindfuck. In this regard they are far from alone) don't help contribute useful content to this thread.
Selective, drive-by, non-substantive 'criticism' (I'm being charitable calling it that) of certain bits of info I share here -- and as I've made clear many times, I never indicate to subscribe fully to all this content, and in fact typically include disclaimers such as, "for added consideration", etc.; some of the content will be more valuable or worthy of assessment than others, of course -- is a strawman tactic that skirts around the the core issues/problems with much of the dominant/mainstream talking points Re: "climate change".
I've commented on and criticized plenty of what you've posted in this thread, and you usually ignore it and/or repeat the same things over again. I'm still waiting for you to post research backing your claims about the inaccuracy of the models and the degree to which we are responsible for the observed warming.
You typing variations of "that's not true" and "that's bullshit!" Is not convincing, needless to say. Substance-less.
How about you start with a viable counter to my prior posting on the process involved in mining electric car batteries?
The extensive amount of gas and oil required to keep the supply chains moving & batteries manufactured is monumental. And given the current all-out marketing blitz to BUY ELECTRIC CARS, the output will need to increase many-fold. For how long? At what cost?
How the fuck can ANYONE claim that the process for manufacturing electric car batteries is in ANY way 'sustainable'?
There will be a time in the future where this (and numerous other currently accepted beliefs and policies) will be viewed as the brazen -- and stupid, at least for those not profiting from it -- non-science power grabs they so clearly are.
And, again: this is not giving the oil and gas industry a 'free pass' by typing the above, FFS.
But the agendas afoot right now are orders of magnitude more harmful & damaging. Left unchecked, current agendas will lead directly to a new form of overt totalitarianism/fascism.
It's already well underway, while many remain asleep because many of these draconian policies rhyme with, or have been 'optically' associated with, one's perceived political leanings.
All the while, the proponents/supporters of these harmful policies don't bother looking under the hood or taking any sort of deep dive, wholly reliant and comfortable with the assuring proclamations of the 'experts'. No vetting or corroboration required.
One need only observe the ongoing covid-fuckery as Exhibit A for how relatively easy it is for a majority to play right along with whatever the fuck a compromised 'expert' will say, particularly after years of incremental priming, nudging, and conditioning (aided in no small part by social media/cable 'news').
Belligerent Savant » Thu Oct 27, 2022 3:47 pm wrote:. The comments by PufPuf and DrEvil (who is increasingly coming off here in RI as a cartoon character, or someone tragically stuck in a pre-21st century mindset of how the world works -- mildly notable that neither have commented in the coronavirus main thread for a while, as they seem to be too proud to admit how egregiously wrong they were on certain key aspects of that particular ongoing global mindfuck. In this regard they are far from alone) don't help contribute useful content to this thread.
Selective, drive-by, non-substantive 'criticism' (I'm being charitable calling it that) of certain bits of info I share here -- and as I've made clear many times, I never indicate to subscribe fully to all this content, and in fact typically include disclaimers such as, "for added consideration", etc.; some of the content will be more valuable or worthy of assessment than others, of course -- is a strawman tactic that skirts around the the core issues/problems with much of the dominant/mainstream talking points Re: "climate change".
I've commented on and criticized plenty of what you've posted in this thread, and you usually ignore it and/or repeat the same things over again. I'm still waiting for you to post research backing your claims about the inaccuracy of the models and the degree to which we are responsible for the observed warming.
You typing variations of "that's not true" and "that's bullshit!" Is not convincing, needless to say. Substance-less.
How about you start with a viable counter to my prior posting on the process involved in mining electric car batteries?
Didn't realize they had battery mines. Are there separate mines for cell phone batteries and car batteries, or do the batteries all come out of the same veins?
The extensive amount of gas and oil required to keep the supply chains moving & batteries manufactured is monumental. And given the current all-out marketing blitz to BUY ELECTRIC CARS, the output will need to increase many-fold. For how long? At what cost?
How the fuck can ANYONE claim that the process for manufacturing electric car batteries is in ANY way 'sustainable'?
Who said manufacturing batteries has to be sustainable? It only has to be less bad than driving around in a car that is literally powered by the very same oil you're freaking out over copper supply chains about. And of course, it's physically impossible to replace any of that infrastructure with something less polluting like, I don't know, battery powered vehicles or renewable electricity from the grid. Also, fun fact, you can recycle batteries. It's a little harder to do that with burned gasoline or diesel. Gas cars are a constant source of pollution for as long as they're in use (not to mention the ridiculous amounts of oil and gas that goes into the supply chains to get it to your car in the first place. Funny you didn't mention that), battery cars are a set amount of pollution per car and then it's good to go for years with no emissions (assuming you don't charge it with coal power obviously).
There will be a time in the future where this (and numerous other currently accepted beliefs and policies) will be viewed as the brazen -- and stupid, at least for those not profiting from it -- non-science power grabs they so clearly are.
Speaking of no substance: which currently accepted beliefs and policies? What non-science? Who is grabbing power?
And, again: this is not giving the oil and gas industry a 'free pass' by typing the above, FFS.
But the agendas afoot right now are orders of magnitude more harmful & damaging. Left unchecked, current agendas will lead directly to a new form of overt totalitarianism/fascism.
What agendas? How are they orders of magnitude more harmful and damaging? How will they lead to totalitarianism/fascism?
It's already well underway, while many remain asleep because many of these draconian policies rhyme with, or have been 'optically' associated with, one's perceived political leanings.
What draconian policies?
All the while, the proponents/supporters of these harmful policies don't bother looking under the hood or taking any sort of deep dive, wholly reliant and comfortable with the assuring proclamations of the 'experts'. No vetting or corroboration required.
I've been looking under the hood of climate change for two decades. What's your track record? I don't recall you showing much interest in the subject until your latest fit of paranoia resulted in this thread. Most of what you've posted here is just the same old shit people have been debunking for years. Unfortunately there's always a new sucker coming along, ready to open wide and guzzle down the fossil fuel funded propaganda.
Maybe it will help if I switch out the industry in question:
Big pharma has been stuffing us full of pills for decades, and it's taking a toll on the population. Many people think it will lead to disaster if we don't do something about it and want to switch over to a more holistic approach. Naturally, big pharma doesn't like this and starts pumping out disinfo and propaganda through a wide selection of paid shills, think tanks, bought politicians and experts for hire, many of them with a lifelong career in big pharma.
Would you believe a single word coming from any of those people? Because that's what you're doing now, only with the fossil fuel industry.
One need only observe the ongoing covid-fuckery as Exhibit A for how relatively easy it is for a majority to play right along with whatever the fuck a compromised 'expert' will say, particularly after years of incremental priming, nudging, and conditioning (aided in no small part by social media/cable 'news').
It's all quite pathetic.
You keep making the same mistake over and over again - assuming that anything that isn't 100% perfect from the get-go is bad. It doesn't have to be perfect, only better than the alternative. If you're bleeding from an artery you don't worry about the broken arm until after you stopped the bleeding.
Still waiting for that research.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
a/ People should take more care not to warm the planet. Where I live we've had decades of climate driven disaster.
b/ People should take care to develop black markets based on other currency, or even the original concept of debt as explained by ole mate from the LSE.
Plus, all the more reason to deal with climate change now before shit like this becomes non-optional. But I wouldn't mind beta testing it on the Davos crowd and publishing the results for all to see. Might open a few eyes. https://www.statista.com/chart/26904/es ... me-groups/
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals – study This article is more than 4 years old
Groundbreaking assessment of all life on Earth reveals humanity’s surprisingly tiny part in it as well as our disproportionate impact
Humankind is revealed as simultaneously insignificant and utterly dominant in the grand scheme of life on Earth by a groundbreaking new assessment of all life on the planet.
The world’s 7.6 billion people represent just 0.01% of all living things, according to the study. Yet since the dawn of civilisation, humanity has caused the loss of 83% of all wild mammals and half of plants, while livestock kept by humans abounds.
The new work is the first comprehensive estimate of the weight of every class of living creature and overturns some long-held assumptions. Bacteria are indeed a major life form – 13% of everything – but plants overshadow everything, representing 82% of all living matter. All other creatures, from insects to fungi, to fish and animals, make up just 5% of the world’s biomass.
Another surprise is that the teeming life revealed in the oceans by the recent BBC television series Blue Planet II turns out to represent just 1% of all biomass. The vast majority of life is land-based and a large chunk – an eighth – is bacteria buried deep below the surface.
“I was shocked to find there wasn’t already a comprehensive, holistic estimate of all the different components of biomass,” said Prof Ron Milo, at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, who led the work, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“I would hope this gives people a perspective on the very dominant role that humanity now plays on Earth,” he said, adding that he now chooses to eat less meat due to the huge environmental impact of livestock. All life graphic
The transformation of the planet by human activity has led scientists to the brink of declaring a new geological era – the Anthropocene. One suggested marker for this change are the bones of the domestic chicken, now ubiquitous across the globe.
The new work reveals that farmed poultry today makes up 70% of all birds on the planet, with just 30% being wild. The picture is even more stark for mammals – 60% of all mammals on Earth are livestock, mostly cattle and pigs, 36% are human and just 4% are wild animals.
“It is pretty staggering,” said Milo. “In wildlife films, we see flocks of birds, of every kind, in vast amounts, and then when we did the analysis we found there are [far] more domesticated birds.” Livestock graphic
The destruction of wild habitat for farming, logging and development has resulted in the start of what many scientists consider the sixth mass extinction of life to occur in the Earth’s four billion year history. About half the Earth’s animals are thought to have been lost in the last 50 years.
But comparison of the new estimates with those for the time before humans became farmers and the industrial revolution began reveal the full extent of the huge decline. Just one-sixth of wild mammals, from mice to elephants, remain, surprising even the scientists. In the oceans, three centuries of whaling has left just a fifth of marine mammals in the oceans. Wildlife losses graphic
“It is definitely striking, our disproportionate place on Earth,” said Milo. “When I do a puzzle with my daughters, there is usually an elephant next to a giraffe next to a rhino. But if I was trying to give them a more realistic sense of the world, it would be a cow next to a cow next to a cow and then a chicken.”
Despite humanity’s supremacy, in weight terms Homo sapiens is puny. Viruses alone have a combined weight three times that of humans, as do worms. Fish are 12 times greater than people and fungi 200 times as large. Humans v other life comparison graphic
But our impact on the natural world remains immense, said Milo, particularly in what we choose to eat: “Our dietary choices have a vast effect on the habitats of animals, plants and other organisms.”
“I would hope people would take this [work] as part of their world view of how they consume,” he said. ”I have not become vegetarian, but I do take the environmental impact into my decision making, so it helps me think, do I want to choose beef or poultry or use tofu instead?”
The researchers calculated the biomass estimates using data from hundreds of studies, which often used modern techniques, such as satellite remote sensing that can scan great areas, and gene sequencing that can unravel the myriad organisms in the microscopic world.
Hey, but lets just pretend that what we do has no effect. How could we change climate or something like that. This is fine, right?
And yes, I am vegan, have been for a long time, and first went vegetarian in 1996. And definitely will never have children. Also only ride a bicycle, never owned a car. Feel pretty hopeless about humanitys prospects at the moment, though. Still way too many people who think it is gonna be just fine, I can buy that electric car and "do my part".
We would need a total systemic change, and getting rid of animal abuse, capitalism and imperialism are the very first thing we need.
Edit: I studied mire and forest ecology and forestry for 8 years in university, so these issues are quite familiar to me and were pretty central in the studies. Dont work in that area, though.
