They have already started to use their strengths to offset the
weaknesses that’s great! I’ve heard way too many stories about
how the weaker guys were treated in boot. There’s always bullies
that won’t let it go even after the weaker guys catch up.
That reminds me of Robert Asprin’s ‘Phule’ series of novels.
It’s worth considering that something like the obstacle course is used wrong.
I mean if someone in the field gets wounded, his comrades are supposed to help
him, right? So why has the obstacle course to be done alone? I understand that
every soldier should be fit enough to to manage it, but all the time? What is
wrong with helping the weaker comrades on it from time to time. That’s what
they are supposed to do in the field, right? Working as a team.
That’s what they do in the Phule novels. They also demolish the obstacle
course on a regular base. Because in the field, if you had to get a company
over a wall, you would put a hole into it, not force the soldiers over it
while possibly under fire. They do the same with other obstacles instead of
passing them as usual. True, in the real world that would be extremely
expensive, but I think it is a question worth considering.
Are these recruits OSUT (One Station Unit Training) COHORT?
Meaning, that they’ll stay together after training when
they’re assigned to their permanent unit & location?
1st: our energy crisis has nothing to do with “nutty anti-energy positions”.
France has a problem that more than half of their “Nuke plants” had to be
shutdown for various reasons (regular maintenance, security issues with a
certain type of nuke plant, way too hot a summer for them to be safely cooled,
the “new tech” versions being one decade behind schedule …)
In Germany, our problems are mostly because of some people thinking it might be a
good idea to go for the less visible solution and overly rely on Russia-imported
natural gas.
The government of MY state has been actively sabotaging the installment of new wind
turbines for decades and has deemed it unnecessary to build additional transmission
capacities to the north, like the experts wanted to. Just because these wouldnâtâve
been all too popular. The northern states produce way more energy then they need.)
In short: about half the oh-so-cool fossil energy Europe uses has been imported from
foreign countries, namely a huge part of this from Russia (against us “eco freaks”
warning them to make ourselves independent from Mr. Putin).
Another part has been the extremely hot summer this year which caused problems for
countries like France and Switzerland who designed their nuke plants to rely on
rivers for cooling. And some parts of Scandinavia who had less water for their
hydroelectric plants.
2nd climate protesters have been very quiet the last few years, mostly because that
virus nobody wants to hear about anymore. Oh. Seems your source is correct. Missed
that report. Actions like that are pretty pointless. Doing nothing isn’t helping
much either. … Any hints on how to better make people listen?
“1st: our energy crisis has nothing to do with ânutty anti-energy positionsâ.”
Because no one is listening to the nutty, anti-energy crowd.
How to better make people listen? By presenting the position in a logical,
reasonable way that people will want to listen to. Screaming,
vandalism, interfering with their daily lives drowns out whatever point
you want to get across. You can’t “make” people listen,
you must persuade them to.
Germany currently produce like half our electricity using wind and solar.
And we’re EXPORTING it, to FRANCE. Who normally rely mainly on nuke
power (like 70%-80%, unless they have to shutdown too many plants at
once).
Environmentalists have been using hard, scientific fact for many decades now.
So logic doesn’t help all that much either, does it. Mind you: I’m not one of those
who block roads or glue themselves anywhere.
Oh, and there’s plenty of other screaming blocking vandals on the other side too.
Farmers over here are notorious for blocking cities for causes ranging from too little
governmental money and being pressured into to low prices by large discounters to
ecological regulations they don’t like.
Not to mention all those nice people who think it’s a justified way of protest if you
burn down refugee-housings.
Yeaaaahhh… I’m not so sure about those “hard, scientific facts”. Climate change proponents
have been changing positions faster than a prostitute at a discount marathon.
In the ’70s it was global cooling.
In the 80s-90s it was global warming.
When events didn’t match predictions it became the catch-all “climate change” that
could be twisted to explain everything.
So far, every prediction of disaster “In ten years!” has failed to occur.
The “science-based” predictions have failed every time.
The lies, hypocrisy and name-calling turn rational people away in disgust, and we are
called “Climate deniers”. No one denies that the climate is changing, we just question
the effect that the activities of Man have much to do with it.
But that’s the way of the Left, to accuse their opponents of holding beliefs that they do
not. That’s why we don’t listen.
Climate change is real but it’s not the “end of the world”
event like these people claim. No “The Day After Tomorrow”
event that kills have of the world population and causes
a new ice age.
Exactly. The climate has been changing since the Earth was created.
Until now, we’ve adapted to the climate.
Now extremists want to adapt the climate to us.
The term “climate change” has been coined because “global warming” is too simple a term.
There’s things like some areas cooling down for a while and stuff.
And they thought the term “climate catastrophe” would stop people from trying.
I dunno where you get your numbers from, but the reports have been pretty accurate all the
way back to the late 70s (before that we didn’t have anywhere near the computers to try and
simulate anything like world climate).
The idea that CO2 buildup in the atmosphere will lead to a global warming dates back to the
late 19th century by the way.
About that “next ice age” thingy? Yeah, heard that in school too (70s)
We SHOULD be on our way back to the next ice age currently because of complicated
astronomical stuff (I could try and explain, but this would be even more lengthy)
As for the time frame: the good thing about all this is: all of us here will be many decades
dead before it really gets nasty. And were can expect to worst effects will hit us later than
those poor suckers who where stupid enough to be born in less fortunate places.
The bad part is: all of our political leaders and all of the CEOs who’re currently in charge
will be just as long dead, too – and they have their money and connections and influence to
mitigate early consequences even better than we do.
The fact that our grandchildren’s grandchildren will curse our names every night instead of
a prayer is a different thing.
I believe it simply because I notice things and remember events
long before the activists and scientists started to make claims etc.
I also know that the same data can be changed while still having
the same information just by how it’s presented. Like children
deaths by gun violence, they don’t mention the ages of the victims
just call them children.
I’m going by how things have changed since I was a young man
until now and I can find data to back up my opinion just as easily
as you can. I won’t bother simply because it won’t matter, your
opinion won’t change until things are so bad you can’t ignore it.
So sure, I’m an idiot and you it it all. End of story…
The data I linked above are – as far as I know – correct,
can be checked against other sources
and are presented in a very well defined way.
The xkcd strip for example made a point
of not compressing the timeline in any way.
He’s explaining the limitations in detail
(look at the 15500 bc side image).
Temperature has been changing in terms of millennia;
now it’s over the course of a few decades.
Fact, the climate is changing.
Fact, if we get the first large crop failure,
it is too late to do anything about it.
Fact, we could increase the food production, while
reducing the land used and make it independent
of the weather and climate. It’s just not profitable yet.
By the time it is profitable, it is probably millions will
starve and it would not do anything for many of those
that starve, because it will still be too expensive for them.
And now for the real question, can we afford to be wrong?
We’re not seeing crop failures because of climate change, we’re seeing them because of
governments’ destructive responses to claims of climate change. Bans on fertilizer
because of Nitrogen, for example.
Sri Lanka comes to mind. A true preventable man-made disaster.
Ok. That’s one unique (and admittedly stupid) example.
There’s plenty of counter examples where our over-optimizing caused similar disasters.
Like the US in the ‘1930s.
About actual climate related loss of food sources: this year alone, we had massive problems
with way too high temperatures and too less rain all over in Europe and in China. As well as
“unusual” flooding in places like Pakistan (yeah I know. Nobody likes them anyway)
While that is “weather” and not “climate” – the rate at which we’re seeing these is on a steep
increase.
Sadly about the thing with making themselves more dependent
on Putin it doesn’t solve anything. Like in the USA we’ve made
ourselves dependent of foreign oil which carries too many down-
sides with it.
I honestly do believe there is climate change where I live now
rarely had snow before Christmas in the ’70s now we’ve gotten
snow in November every year for the last 10 years.
My father disagrees with the idea of global warming and says
that it’s because out planet has too many people on it and I
have to agree when I was a boy there was about 6 billion
now we’re about to hit 8 billion. Each and every one of them
exhale CO2 and create waste.
There are solutions to many of the problems we’ve caused
ourselves and it’s going to take time, money, and effort.
Sadly the companies and world governments have been
avoiding it so long that the solutions may not come fast enough
to slow these weather changes, the good old “Too little too late”
or “Who’s going to pay for this?” isn’t going to save the average
person’s suffering from freak storms or sudden flooding that
destroys entire towns.
My home town up until ’95 rarely seen blizzards (snowfall greater
than 12 in over a 24 hr period) has had18″ plus every year since
’95, we were stranded in our home for 3 days in ’97 because of
24″ fall in just 12 hours!
Luckily the power didn’t go out for very long but I had to walk
with a backpack to the store to get a few basics to get us through.
The store was open but they had no power so some of the high
school students had volunteered to walk people with flash lights
and wrote down what was picked so I could pay for it.
Events like that have been happening all all over the world and it’s
going to get worse before it get better. More so while world governments
are playing their games and ignoring the real issues.
As I said. Local and short term changes are not “global climate”.
For example: 3 decades back we had cute little yellow-black
antennae next to the ordinary road markers where I live, because
the snow used to cover those road markers twice or thrice a year.
Last 5 or so years we had barely any snow at all. And only a few
days below freezing. 20 years back we sometimes hit minus
15°C for several weeks.
If you look at global averages the picture’s pretty clear. We’re
bound to reach the “goal” we set ourselves for the end of the
century – within this very decade.
Considering we now have the technology and resources to create
post-scarcity, we are able to eliminate the question ‘Who is
going to pay for it?’. Together with a lot of other problems.
It’s just the changes, especially in the way we think about
stuff will have to change massively.
I read a story in the paper that I shared a while back,
It was about this activist group that took it upon
themselves to “save the trees” by trespassing on private
land and chain themselves to a tree demanding that a
business man not to clear his land and build a much needed
shopping center for several towns that had to travel
several miles just to get basic needs, and yes make money
as well. long story short the tree’s were cleared and they
were arrested after 2 of the workers cut the chains.
I don’t like clear-cutting either but in some cases it’s necessary.
Of course. I learn more from the people who disagree with me than
I do from those that agree.
As long as you present your case in a civilized manner that causes
me to want to hear what you have to say, we have no problem.
This story: http://thegentlewolf.net/comic/tgw-970/
Do you think they would have been willing to listen to him if he’d
invaded their office and threw paint on their walls?
Jim changed his appearance to make himself fit their idea of what
they saw as a rational man because what he wanted was important
enough for him to make that personal sacrifice.
Should he have had to? Maybe not in an ideal world, but he was
dealing with the real, not the ideal, and he was wise enough to
understand that.
He’s the current prime minister of Bavaria. And he’s the head of the CSU, has been in a
position of power for decades, and is … “not exactly a shrinking violet”.
(CSU is the party that’s been running things in Bavaria for almost 8 decades straight now,
they’re conservative – I spare you the details about German politics, but they usually have
more influence than they should because of several peculiarities).
Anyway.
Thing is, after the Fukushima event (that tsunami in Japan that made a nuke plant blow
up?) our conservative/libertarian government of that time decided to quit nuclear power
all together.
Neither the CSU nor Mr. Söder protested.
The last three of these plants had been scheduled be taken offline at the end of this year.
(NOTE: Since the nuclear fuel is the most expensive part of the process, this implies that
they’re well on their last leg, fuel-wise)
Germany still has not found any place anywhere for the nuclear waste of the last decades.
At least no permanent solution. Start of this century we decided to finally find such a place.
Experts (Geologists ‘n stuff) where given several parameters to work with …
A few years later the experts publish a map with plenty of locations to pick from. Some in
Bavaria. Mr. Söder was very very quick to declare that any place in his holy homeland is
“obviously” unfit for a nuclear waste disposal site. (HOW DARE THEY TRY TO SUGGEST
OTHERWISE?)
He, his party, and his coalition partner actively sabotaged raising new wind generators in Bavaria.
He, his party, and his coalition partner stopped any project for improving the transmission
infrastructure (there’s plenty of off-shore wind capacity in the North Sea), because “we don’t need
it”.
Of course Bavaria is proud of it’s high tech and energy consuming industry. And of course THAT
industry dearly needs vast amounts of electricity. But hey. Let’s build some nice cute neutral gas
plants (btw: neutral gas was more expensive than wind energy even before Putin’s war …).
They’re almost invisible, they don’t smell – and there’s nobody really protesting against those.
Now that Russia isn’t sending much gas our way anymore he suddenly has a problem.
Eh. Sorry. Everybody ELSE has to help him solve the problems in his state.
His suggestions include: re-evaluate the ban on fracking for natural gas.
Of course he’s asking the NORTHERN half of Germany to do so (in other words
the part that has plenty of electricity).
Keeping all three nuke plants running for the next …dunno? Three millions years
maybe?
Pity nobody asked: “Ok, does that mean we’re building that waste site in your state, then?”
Somebody called him “lord of the N.I.M.B.Y.s … .he wasn’t amused.
Oh. And he’s blaming the “Greens” for wanting to quit nuke power.
They are part of the current central government, and they did nothing to expedite the
process. His CSU has been part of the previous governments for TWO frikking decades.
And they did nothing to stop it. And our current, green Secretary Of Commerce was the
first in line to say “we will look into keeping those nuke plants running for a while longer”.
In fact he made some decisions that he deemed necessary at the moment and but his
own agenda on hold for the time being – knowing damn well that this will cost him at least
some votes.
PS: government decided to keep those plants running until like maybe April next year.
By that time there’s probably not much juice left in ’em anyway. Anything beyond that
would mean to not only buy new fuels but to have them shutdown for intensive maintenance
since the companies running them had been cut some slack in light of the limited remaining
life time.
PPS: About nuclear power making us less dependent on Russia?
Yeah sure. Guess who’s one of the largest exporters of nuclear fuels, currently?
eaten,,, site has a “word count” an spam filter..
BUTT .. post anyway.! cuz PC or I will be checking
(i check 2 -3 times daily.) .. 3 were ‘eaten’ today
cuz of word count..
also when i ‘edit’ , i’m only doing , spelling errors,
and format.. i do NOT change what you type.!
I am of the opinion that those “climate change activists” who demand that something be done,
IMMEDIATELY about “climate change”, should have their power, water and fuel, shut down
IMMEDIATELY. This has the advantage of actually cutting back on actual environmental impact,
as they desire, while graphically illustrating the problems with a “shotgun” approach to the issue.
Yes, I agree, we need to figure out more efficient, less polluting, ways to handle power generation,
Manufacturing and waste disposal, as well as sustainable methods of both cleaning up after ourselves,
but there, “knee jerk” reactions, often, do far more harm, than well thought out, coordinated, efforts,
that are phased into place, as they become more fully.realised, including unintended consequences.
For example; windmill turbines that never had, “end of life” recycling planned out, let alone even considered,
(This is currently being addressed by certain companies, but environmental impact on bird migration
is still.an issue) decommissioning nuclear nuclear reactors at the end of their lives, (newer, safer and more
recyclable designs ARE now available, but the bureaucratic and regulatory “red tape” has delayed their
replacement for decades. This is an issue that needs addressing fast.) And there are many other examples,
where well meaning solutions were never fully explored, either for long term benifits, or unintended
consequences. If we ARE to create a sustainable, long term future for ourselves and our children,
we need well thought out solutions, whose unintended consquences, (and there WILL be said
consequences) are both manageable, if not actually, beneficial.
In short, protesting the problem, without addressing the base causes, AND offering potential
well thought out solutions, does little, other than create noise that obscures the problems,
and distracts from solutions.
Very very few are saying “shut everything down, at once”.
You have those type for any issue you could be talking about.
Most of us are saying we should define long term goals, and take decisive actions to actually meet these.
We’re all to well aware that these changes will take many decades to come into full effect, that’s why we
say “start now, don’t waste another five decades”.
And there’s plenty of slow, doable changes implemented all around the globe.
By the way, after fifty years of hearing people deny the existence of a problem saying we maybe
should commit ourselves to start some action within the next two or three decades is hardly
“knee jerk”. I know about glaciers moving (or rather vanishing) faster than that.
But there’s also still way too many people who did the math and realized that they will be long dead before
the real trouble starts – and that they’re bound to make a little less if they cleaned up there act.
About that “new nuke plants”: none of the concepts presented their is all that new.
Like those breeder things? The concept is from the fifties (oh, wait – first protype US, 1946), I’ve had
family in the ’80s who lived near a test plant.
They’re more efficient, sure.
Every concept I’ve ever seen does security issues – which is only natural. So many energy in one place,
there has to be a chance it might go boom.
They all produce radioactive waste that can’t be used for generating more energy and has to be disposed
of in a safe way.
About the windmills: they, too are hardly a new concept.
Do we have to make them more efficient and consider their recycling better? Sure.
As we have to with everything ELSE we’re doing.
And the bird killing monster stories: did they bother to compare the numbers of birds being killed by
windmills to those killed by cars, windows, cats/hawks/whatevers?
Or those eating plastics or poisoned insects?
Anything we do has consequences. Multiply any tiny action by 7 000 000 000 and those consequences
will be massive.
Nobody claims that windmills or hydro electric plants or geothermic plants or whatever concept is
without a potentially negative effect on the environment.
But I, for one, know that these consequences are less problematic then looking for new ways to pump
toxins down some otherwise unexploitable oilfield or to build even more nuke plants who could blow
up just because of losing cooling.
One problem with the whole “Climate Change” panic is the sheer hypocrisy of your
chosen leaders. It makes the whole thing look like a scam when:
Your most famous leader says that we all need to make sacrifices, yet has become
wealthy on the subject and lives in a mansion that uses enough energy to power a
small town.
Or a “Climate Change” conference is held in a luxury resort in a distant land and
100 attendees participate, with 101 private jets on the tarmac.
When the President of the United States lectures us on the terrible threat of rising
sea levels then spends millions on oceanfront properties…
When the two nations – China and India – that create the most pollution and are in
the process of expanding those efforts get a free pass from criticism while the rest
of us are lectured that we must freeze in the dark…
You’re not going to get what you want by pushing everyone else to sacrifice, you
have to actually lead, to show us how it’s done, to prove that you’re serious by
making the sacrifices FIRST that you want to force everyone else make now.
We’ve been lied to so many times in the past that we’re not going to believe
anything easily now, just because “The science says”.
I won’t address all of your points, I’ll leave that to others. There’s a lot of science
and scientists that say you’re wrong. Nothing’s settled, that’s how real science works.
But Environmentalists shut down an entire industry because the Spotted Owl might
be bothered, yet your bird blenders kill millions of birds a year, including endangered
species and that’s perfectly okay, because other causes kill more?
That’s the equivalent of saying that Stalin murdering millions of his own people was
just fine because Mao murdered more.
I don’t get all the references – for example who’s supposed to be my “leader”?
You do have a point about hypocrits, tho. You find plenty of those on any side.
For example Norway who’s generating all their own electricity using water and wind
energy – and yet make a very good coin by being drilling and exporting oil.
Or business people claiming that there’s no climate change – while gushing about the
possibilities of opening trade route over the north pole, once that pesky ice is gone.
China is a complex example. They did officially commit themselves to become CO2
neutral by 2050 – but they don’t exactly have a history of keeping their promises.
The one thing where you really really are plain, and painfully, wrong is the thing about
nothing being decided. Apart from some payed, self-proclaimed “experts” the real scientists
are only arguing over details not over the basic facts any more.
And you will find THAT in any scientific field, because it comes with the trade. Science
advances through challenging the status quo of “what we know”.
if you look hard enough you’re sure to find scientists (worthy of the title) telling you that
quantum theory is oh so wrong in many ways …
Still you can’t deny the fact that we do have computers and microwaves and nuclear power
(even modern chemistry is based on using the Shroedinger equation – yes the guy with the cat)
Absolute false equivalence.
I, for one, don’t like being lied about. Knock it off.
No one is arguing that the climate isn’t changing. The argument is over the cause, where
the science is certainly not settled.
I have no problem with scientists being paid for their work, look at the income of your most
well-known Man-made climate change proponents, and where that income is coming from.
Do you think they’re going to cut off the gravy train by claiming anything different? There’s
too much money floating around the climate change environment.
There have been too many times in the past where “The science is settled” was claimed,
yet later proven wrong, for any reasoning individual to believe that the science is settled
today, just because the scientists who are paid to do so are making that same false claim
now. And until the proponents of man-caused climate change disrupt their own lifestyles
to fight climate change, the rest of us are certainly unwilling to do so.
We can be led, but we will not be forced.
That’s what makes your claims worthless… It’s up to you, and others who believe the
same as you, to lead the way. But you aren’t, so all of your claims of impending disaster
ring false and hollow.
The question is not which sponsor has the most money. The question
is which sponsor spends the most on their position.
The US government spends a fortune on climate research that agrees
with one point of view, does Saudi Aramco spend more?
Actually they’re a bad example. I don’t know much about the company, nor their PR spendings.
Also they seem to claim to be working on lowering the carbon troughput.
Companies like Exxon are known to have spent billions and billions in “anti climate PR” over the
last decades.
And, what every one is conveniently forgetting.!? Ice Age Cycles..
we are at/near the end of a ice cycle going into a ‘greenhouse’ cycle..
yes, yes,. people ARE adding to it. (planes grounding after 911,
actually changed the weather patterns..)(also covid-19 lockdown
changed patterns..) BUT, that does not change the ‘cycle’ ,, in the
next 300 to 500 years the average day time temp will be 100f..
No they’re not forgetting this. In fact there are recent studies that clearly show
we should be on our way back to the next cold period, and would be if not for
the CO2 we’re adding to the equation.
Also the cycles you mentioned are on a different time scale. Ice ages come and go over
tens of thousands of years. Current climate change is in the scale of centuries or even decades.
The 100°F you mention scare me more than just a bit, by the way.
A world where the AVERAGE temperature is that high … we’d be dead long before that.
hence why “we are near/at the end”.. the ‘next’ ice age is due in
50,000 years peaking at 80,000 years… BUT,, due to greenhouse-ing
an man,. the heat should start around 300y an max at 500 years..
IF we fix mans interference.. otherwise the ‘greenhouse’ will push
back the timeline.. they are saying at least 100,000 years… https://www.earthdate.org/episodes/greenhouse-icehouse-earth
I believe it is time to end this discussion. Everything that needed to be said,
has been said.
We return to the “No politics, religion or environmental” rule.
We now return to the entertainment. Thank you.
They have already started to use their strengths to offset the
weaknesses that’s great! I’ve heard way too many stories about
how the weaker guys were treated in boot. There’s always bullies
that won’t let it go even after the weaker guys catch up.
That reminds me of Robert Asprin’s ‘Phule’ series of novels.
It’s worth considering that something like the obstacle course is used wrong.
I mean if someone in the field gets wounded, his comrades are supposed to help
him, right? So why has the obstacle course to be done alone? I understand that
every soldier should be fit enough to to manage it, but all the time? What is
wrong with helping the weaker comrades on it from time to time. That’s what
they are supposed to do in the field, right? Working as a team.
That’s what they do in the Phule novels. They also demolish the obstacle
course on a regular base. Because in the field, if you had to get a company
over a wall, you would put a hole into it, not force the soldiers over it
while possibly under fire. They do the same with other obstacles instead of
passing them as usual. True, in the real world that would be extremely
expensive, but I think it is a question worth considering.
Sorry, I’ll remember shortening the lines again.
fixed.. đ
Are these recruits OSUT (One Station Unit Training) COHORT?
Meaning, that they’ll stay together after training when
they’re assigned to their permanent unit & location?
“It’s the first unit of it’s type” So maybe?
depends on the op and the pet bees I
guess. And PC of course….
Knowing the cat’s speed and reflexes I’m sure
they could handle the weather with a little practice.
Is there someone at Volkswagen who reads this comic?
http://thegentlewolf.net/comic/tgw-503/
Seriously, this is the best way:
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/10/20/hilarious-this-may-just-be-the-best-response-to-climate-change-radicals-n646173
1st: our energy crisis has nothing to do with “nutty anti-energy positions”.
France has a problem that more than half of their “Nuke plants” had to be
shutdown for various reasons (regular maintenance, security issues with a
certain type of nuke plant, way too hot a summer for them to be safely cooled,
the “new tech” versions being one decade behind schedule …)
In Germany, our problems are mostly because of some people thinking it might be a
good idea to go for the less visible solution and overly rely on Russia-imported
natural gas.
The government of MY state has been actively sabotaging the installment of new wind
turbines for decades and has deemed it unnecessary to build additional transmission
capacities to the north, like the experts wanted to. Just because these wouldnâtâve
been all too popular. The northern states produce way more energy then they need.)
In short: about half the oh-so-cool fossil energy Europe uses has been imported from
foreign countries, namely a huge part of this from Russia (against us “eco freaks”
warning them to make ourselves independent from Mr. Putin).
Another part has been the extremely hot summer this year which caused problems for
countries like France and Switzerland who designed their nuke plants to rely on
rivers for cooling. And some parts of Scandinavia who had less water for their
hydroelectric plants.
2nd climate protesters have been very quiet the last few years, mostly because that
virus nobody wants to hear about anymore. Oh. Seems your source is correct. Missed
that report. Actions like that are pretty pointless. Doing nothing isn’t helping
much either. … Any hints on how to better make people listen?
“1st: our energy crisis has nothing to do with ânutty anti-energy positionsâ.”
Because no one is listening to the nutty, anti-energy crowd.
How to better make people listen? By presenting the position in a logical,
reasonable way that people will want to listen to. Screaming,
vandalism, interfering with their daily lives drowns out whatever point
you want to get across. You can’t “make” people listen,
you must persuade them to.
Germany currently produce like half our electricity using wind and solar.
And we’re EXPORTING it, to FRANCE. Who normally rely mainly on nuke
power (like 70%-80%, unless they have to shutdown too many plants at
once).
Environmentalists have been using hard, scientific fact for many decades now.
So logic doesn’t help all that much either, does it. Mind you: I’m not one of those
who block roads or glue themselves anywhere.
Oh, and there’s plenty of other screaming blocking vandals on the other side too.
Farmers over here are notorious for blocking cities for causes ranging from too little
governmental money and being pressured into to low prices by large discounters to
ecological regulations they don’t like.
Not to mention all those nice people who think it’s a justified way of protest if you
burn down refugee-housings.
Yeaaaahhh… I’m not so sure about those “hard, scientific facts”. Climate change proponents
have been changing positions faster than a prostitute at a discount marathon.
In the ’70s it was global cooling.
In the 80s-90s it was global warming.
When events didn’t match predictions it became the catch-all “climate change” that
could be twisted to explain everything.
So far, every prediction of disaster “In ten years!” has failed to occur.
The “science-based” predictions have failed every time.
The lies, hypocrisy and name-calling turn rational people away in disgust, and we are
called “Climate deniers”. No one denies that the climate is changing, we just question
the effect that the activities of Man have much to do with it.
But that’s the way of the Left, to accuse their opponents of holding beliefs that they do
not. That’s why we don’t listen.
Climate change is real but it’s not the “end of the world”
event like these people claim. No “The Day After Tomorrow”
event that kills have of the world population and causes
a new ice age.
Exactly. The climate has been changing since the Earth was created.
Until now, we’ve adapted to the climate.
Now extremists want to adapt the climate to us.
While it’s true that the climate has always been changing,
it’s about the SPEED of the current change.
Kindly have a look at this graph.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
I posted the link before. As far as I know the data is
accurate within the limitations he’s mentioning in the grafik.
Or this link, if you prefer Wikipedia over some science nerd geeky guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years
Erf. This guy is going to take Days to respond to. I’m sorry, I KNOW he’s wrong but I actually don’t have the time to give to him.
The term “climate change” has been coined because “global warming” is too simple a term.
There’s things like some areas cooling down for a while and stuff.
And they thought the term “climate catastrophe” would stop people from trying.
I dunno where you get your numbers from, but the reports have been pretty accurate all the
way back to the late 70s (before that we didn’t have anywhere near the computers to try and
simulate anything like world climate).
The idea that CO2 buildup in the atmosphere will lead to a global warming dates back to the
late 19th century by the way.
About that “next ice age” thingy? Yeah, heard that in school too (70s)
We SHOULD be on our way back to the next ice age currently because of complicated
astronomical stuff (I could try and explain, but this would be even more lengthy)
As for the time frame: the good thing about all this is: all of us here will be many decades
dead before it really gets nasty. And were can expect to worst effects will hit us later than
those poor suckers who where stupid enough to be born in less fortunate places.
The bad part is: all of our political leaders and all of the CEOs who’re currently in charge
will be just as long dead, too – and they have their money and connections and influence to
mitigate early consequences even better than we do.
The fact that our grandchildren’s grandchildren will curse our names every night instead of
a prayer is a different thing.
I believe it simply because I notice things and remember events
long before the activists and scientists started to make claims etc.
I also know that the same data can be changed while still having
the same information just by how it’s presented. Like children
deaths by gun violence, they don’t mention the ages of the victims
just call them children.
I’m going by how things have changed since I was a young man
until now and I can find data to back up my opinion just as easily
as you can. I won’t bother simply because it won’t matter, your
opinion won’t change until things are so bad you can’t ignore it.
So sure, I’m an idiot and you it it all. End of story…
What you mean about scientist “making claims”?
That’s their friggin job.
The data I linked above are – as far as I know – correct,
can be checked against other sources
and are presented in a very well defined way.
The xkcd strip for example made a point
of not compressing the timeline in any way.
He’s explaining the limitations in detail
(look at the 15500 bc side image).
Temperature has been changing in terms of millennia;
now it’s over the course of a few decades.
Fact, the climate is changing.
Fact, if we get the first large crop failure,
it is too late to do anything about it.
Fact, we could increase the food production, while
reducing the land used and make it independent
of the weather and climate. It’s just not profitable yet.
By the time it is profitable, it is probably millions will
starve and it would not do anything for many of those
that starve, because it will still be too expensive for them.
And now for the real question, can we afford to be wrong?
Fact: They’ve been making these claims since Malthus.
Fact: crops across the globe have been setting records, year after year after Decade.
We’re not seeing crop failures because of climate change, we’re seeing them because of
governments’ destructive responses to claims of climate change. Bans on fertilizer
because of Nitrogen, for example.
Sri Lanka comes to mind. A true preventable man-made disaster.
Ok. That’s one unique (and admittedly stupid) example.
There’s plenty of counter examples where our over-optimizing caused similar disasters.
Like the US in the ‘1930s.
About actual climate related loss of food sources: this year alone, we had massive problems
with way too high temperatures and too less rain all over in Europe and in China. As well as
“unusual” flooding in places like Pakistan (yeah I know. Nobody likes them anyway)
While that is “weather” and not “climate” – the rate at which we’re seeing these is on a steep
increase.
In this country for sure.
Sadly about the thing with making themselves more dependent
on Putin it doesn’t solve anything. Like in the USA we’ve made
ourselves dependent of foreign oil which carries too many down-
sides with it.
I honestly do believe there is climate change where I live now
rarely had snow before Christmas in the ’70s now we’ve gotten
snow in November every year for the last 10 years.
My father disagrees with the idea of global warming and says
that it’s because out planet has too many people on it and I
have to agree when I was a boy there was about 6 billion
now we’re about to hit 8 billion. Each and every one of them
exhale CO2 and create waste.
There are solutions to many of the problems we’ve caused
ourselves and it’s going to take time, money, and effort.
Sadly the companies and world governments have been
avoiding it so long that the solutions may not come fast enough
to slow these weather changes, the good old “Too little too late”
or “Who’s going to pay for this?” isn’t going to save the average
person’s suffering from freak storms or sudden flooding that
destroys entire towns.
My home town up until ’95 rarely seen blizzards (snowfall greater
than 12 in over a 24 hr period) has had18″ plus every year since
’95, we were stranded in our home for 3 days in ’97 because of
24″ fall in just 12 hours!
Luckily the power didn’t go out for very long but I had to walk
with a backpack to the store to get a few basics to get us through.
The store was open but they had no power so some of the high
school students had volunteered to walk people with flash lights
and wrote down what was picked so I could pay for it.
Events like that have been happening all all over the world and it’s
going to get worse before it get better. More so while world governments
are playing their games and ignoring the real issues.
As I said. Local and short term changes are not “global climate”.
For example: 3 decades back we had cute little yellow-black
antennae next to the ordinary road markers where I live, because
the snow used to cover those road markers twice or thrice a year.
Last 5 or so years we had barely any snow at all. And only a few
days below freezing. 20 years back we sometimes hit minus
15°C for several weeks.
If you look at global averages the picture’s pretty clear. We’re
bound to reach the “goal” we set ourselves for the end of the
century – within this very decade.
Considering we now have the technology and resources to create
post-scarcity, we are able to eliminate the question ‘Who is
going to pay for it?’. Together with a lot of other problems.
It’s just the changes, especially in the way we think about
stuff will have to change massively.
Pity someone in the group didn’t! I love it
far better than the tree huggers stupidity.
You have freedom of speech, yes.
I am under no obligation to provide a platform
to you, or to avoid ridiculing your mistakes.
I read a story in the paper that I shared a while back,
It was about this activist group that took it upon
themselves to “save the trees” by trespassing on private
land and chain themselves to a tree demanding that a
business man not to clear his land and build a much needed
shopping center for several towns that had to travel
several miles just to get basic needs, and yes make money
as well. long story short the tree’s were cleared and they
were arrested after 2 of the workers cut the chains.
I don’t like clear-cutting either but in some cases it’s necessary.
(I really should stop posting.)
Fixed. Whatever you do, don’t stop posting!
Even if we rarely agree on anything?
And even if keep messing up my English?
Of course. I learn more from the people who disagree with me than
I do from those that agree.
As long as you present your case in a civilized manner that causes
me to want to hear what you have to say, we have no problem.
This story: http://thegentlewolf.net/comic/tgw-970/
Do you think they would have been willing to listen to him if he’d
invaded their office and threw paint on their walls?
Jim changed his appearance to make himself fit their idea of what
they saw as a rational man because what he wanted was important
enough for him to make that personal sacrifice.
Should he have had to? Maybe not in an ideal world, but he was
dealing with the real, not the ideal, and he was wise enough to
understand that.
You should have heard me trying to be understood
when I was stationed in Deutschland.
At least you did try đ
Kidding. Most G.I. I knew never had a chance
at trying to actually learn the language.
English usually is our 2nd language at school
(and it’s easy enough to get the basics)
We had a phrase for the best way to learn German:
“Get yourself a horizontal dictionary.”
That idea goes both ways too.
Most of the girls dating G.I.s in my “circle”
were fluently speaking English. đ
“rarely agree” ,, I think that’s the point..
AND as long as we are ‘polite’.. PC loves it.
it means we are paying attention..
@PC: permission to rant about a politician none of you people
will know anyways, sir?
Sure, go ahead. And don’t call me “sir”, I work for my money.
(Old military retort.)
Ok. Markus Söder. And his energy policy.
He’s the current prime minister of Bavaria. And he’s the head of the CSU, has been in a
position of power for decades, and is … “not exactly a shrinking violet”.
(CSU is the party that’s been running things in Bavaria for almost 8 decades straight now,
they’re conservative – I spare you the details about German politics, but they usually have
more influence than they should because of several peculiarities).
Anyway.
Thing is, after the Fukushima event (that tsunami in Japan that made a nuke plant blow
up?) our conservative/libertarian government of that time decided to quit nuclear power
all together.
Neither the CSU nor Mr. Söder protested.
The last three of these plants had been scheduled be taken offline at the end of this year.
(NOTE: Since the nuclear fuel is the most expensive part of the process, this implies that
they’re well on their last leg, fuel-wise)
Germany still has not found any place anywhere for the nuclear waste of the last decades.
At least no permanent solution. Start of this century we decided to finally find such a place.
Experts (Geologists ‘n stuff) where given several parameters to work with …
A few years later the experts publish a map with plenty of locations to pick from. Some in
Bavaria. Mr. Söder was very very quick to declare that any place in his holy homeland is
“obviously” unfit for a nuclear waste disposal site. (HOW DARE THEY TRY TO SUGGEST
OTHERWISE?)
He, his party, and his coalition partner actively sabotaged raising new wind generators in Bavaria.
He, his party, and his coalition partner stopped any project for improving the transmission
infrastructure (there’s plenty of off-shore wind capacity in the North Sea), because “we don’t need
it”.
Of course Bavaria is proud of it’s high tech and energy consuming industry. And of course THAT
industry dearly needs vast amounts of electricity. But hey. Let’s build some nice cute neutral gas
plants (btw: neutral gas was more expensive than wind energy even before Putin’s war …).
They’re almost invisible, they don’t smell – and there’s nobody really protesting against those.
Now that Russia isn’t sending much gas our way anymore he suddenly has a problem.
Eh. Sorry. Everybody ELSE has to help him solve the problems in his state.
His suggestions include: re-evaluate the ban on fracking for natural gas.
Of course he’s asking the NORTHERN half of Germany to do so (in other words
the part that has plenty of electricity).
Keeping all three nuke plants running for the next …dunno? Three millions years
maybe?
Pity nobody asked: “Ok, does that mean we’re building that waste site in your state, then?”
Somebody called him “lord of the N.I.M.B.Y.s … .he wasn’t amused.
Oh. And he’s blaming the “Greens” for wanting to quit nuke power.
They are part of the current central government, and they did nothing to expedite the
process. His CSU has been part of the previous governments for TWO frikking decades.
And they did nothing to stop it. And our current, green Secretary Of Commerce was the
first in line to say “we will look into keeping those nuke plants running for a while longer”.
In fact he made some decisions that he deemed necessary at the moment and but his
own agenda on hold for the time being – knowing damn well that this will cost him at least
some votes.
PS: government decided to keep those plants running until like maybe April next year.
By that time there’s probably not much juice left in ’em anyway. Anything beyond that
would mean to not only buy new fuels but to have them shutdown for intensive maintenance
since the companies running them had been cut some slack in light of the limited remaining
life time.
PPS: About nuclear power making us less dependent on Russia?
Yeah sure. Guess who’s one of the largest exporters of nuclear fuels, currently?
(My last post got eaten again? I swear I didn’t swear)
eaten,,, site has a “word count” an spam filter..
BUTT .. post anyway.! cuz PC or I will be checking
(i check 2 -3 times daily.) .. 3 were ‘eaten’ today
cuz of word count..
also when i ‘edit’ , i’m only doing , spelling errors,
and format.. i do NOT change what you type.!
I am of the opinion that those “climate change activists” who demand that something be done,
IMMEDIATELY about “climate change”, should have their power, water and fuel, shut down
IMMEDIATELY. This has the advantage of actually cutting back on actual environmental impact,
as they desire, while graphically illustrating the problems with a “shotgun” approach to the issue.
Yes, I agree, we need to figure out more efficient, less polluting, ways to handle power generation,
Manufacturing and waste disposal, as well as sustainable methods of both cleaning up after ourselves,
but there, “knee jerk” reactions, often, do far more harm, than well thought out, coordinated, efforts,
that are phased into place, as they become more fully.realised, including unintended consequences.
For example; windmill turbines that never had, “end of life” recycling planned out, let alone even considered,
(This is currently being addressed by certain companies, but environmental impact on bird migration
is still.an issue) decommissioning nuclear nuclear reactors at the end of their lives, (newer, safer and more
recyclable designs ARE now available, but the bureaucratic and regulatory “red tape” has delayed their
replacement for decades. This is an issue that needs addressing fast.) And there are many other examples,
where well meaning solutions were never fully explored, either for long term benifits, or unintended
consequences. If we ARE to create a sustainable, long term future for ourselves and our children,
we need well thought out solutions, whose unintended consquences, (and there WILL be said
consequences) are both manageable, if not actually, beneficial.
In short, protesting the problem, without addressing the base causes, AND offering potential
well thought out solutions, does little, other than create noise that obscures the problems,
and distracts from solutions.
Very very few are saying “shut everything down, at once”.
You have those type for any issue you could be talking about.
Most of us are saying we should define long term goals, and take decisive actions to actually meet these.
We’re all to well aware that these changes will take many decades to come into full effect, that’s why we
say “start now, don’t waste another five decades”.
And there’s plenty of slow, doable changes implemented all around the globe.
By the way, after fifty years of hearing people deny the existence of a problem saying we maybe
should commit ourselves to start some action within the next two or three decades is hardly
“knee jerk”. I know about glaciers moving (or rather vanishing) faster than that.
But there’s also still way too many people who did the math and realized that they will be long dead before
the real trouble starts – and that they’re bound to make a little less if they cleaned up there act.
About that “new nuke plants”: none of the concepts presented their is all that new.
Like those breeder things? The concept is from the fifties (oh, wait – first protype US, 1946), I’ve had
family in the ’80s who lived near a test plant.
They’re more efficient, sure.
Every concept I’ve ever seen does security issues – which is only natural. So many energy in one place,
there has to be a chance it might go boom.
They all produce radioactive waste that can’t be used for generating more energy and has to be disposed
of in a safe way.
About the windmills: they, too are hardly a new concept.
Do we have to make them more efficient and consider their recycling better? Sure.
As we have to with everything ELSE we’re doing.
And the bird killing monster stories: did they bother to compare the numbers of birds being killed by
windmills to those killed by cars, windows, cats/hawks/whatevers?
Or those eating plastics or poisoned insects?
Anything we do has consequences. Multiply any tiny action by 7 000 000 000 and those consequences
will be massive.
Nobody claims that windmills or hydro electric plants or geothermic plants or whatever concept is
without a potentially negative effect on the environment.
But I, for one, know that these consequences are less problematic then looking for new ways to pump
toxins down some otherwise unexploitable oilfield or to build even more nuke plants who could blow
up just because of losing cooling.
One problem with the whole “Climate Change” panic is the sheer hypocrisy of your
chosen leaders. It makes the whole thing look like a scam when:
Your most famous leader says that we all need to make sacrifices, yet has become
wealthy on the subject and lives in a mansion that uses enough energy to power a
small town.
Or a “Climate Change” conference is held in a luxury resort in a distant land and
100 attendees participate, with 101 private jets on the tarmac.
When the President of the United States lectures us on the terrible threat of rising
sea levels then spends millions on oceanfront properties…
When the two nations – China and India – that create the most pollution and are in
the process of expanding those efforts get a free pass from criticism while the rest
of us are lectured that we must freeze in the dark…
You’re not going to get what you want by pushing everyone else to sacrifice, you
have to actually lead, to show us how it’s done, to prove that you’re serious by
making the sacrifices FIRST that you want to force everyone else make now.
We’ve been lied to so many times in the past that we’re not going to believe
anything easily now, just because “The science says”.
I won’t address all of your points, I’ll leave that to others. There’s a lot of science
and scientists that say you’re wrong. Nothing’s settled, that’s how real science works.
But Environmentalists shut down an entire industry because the Spotted Owl might
be bothered, yet your bird blenders kill millions of birds a year, including endangered
species and that’s perfectly okay, because other causes kill more?
That’s the equivalent of saying that Stalin murdering millions of his own people was
just fine because Mao murdered more.
I don’t get all the references – for example who’s supposed to be my “leader”?
You do have a point about hypocrits, tho. You find plenty of those on any side.
For example Norway who’s generating all their own electricity using water and wind
energy – and yet make a very good coin by being drilling and exporting oil.
Or business people claiming that there’s no climate change – while gushing about the
possibilities of opening trade route over the north pole, once that pesky ice is gone.
China is a complex example. They did officially commit themselves to become CO2
neutral by 2050 – but they don’t exactly have a history of keeping their promises.
The one thing where you really really are plain, and painfully, wrong is the thing about
nothing being decided. Apart from some payed, self-proclaimed “experts” the real scientists
are only arguing over details not over the basic facts any more.
And you will find THAT in any scientific field, because it comes with the trade. Science
advances through challenging the status quo of “what we know”.
if you look hard enough you’re sure to find scientists (worthy of the title) telling you that
quantum theory is oh so wrong in many ways …
Still you can’t deny the fact that we do have computers and microwaves and nuclear power
(even modern chemistry is based on using the Shroedinger equation – yes the guy with the cat)
Absolute false equivalence.
I, for one, don’t like being lied about. Knock it off.
No one is arguing that the climate isn’t changing. The argument is over the cause, where
the science is certainly not settled.
I have no problem with scientists being paid for their work, look at the income of your most
well-known Man-made climate change proponents, and where that income is coming from.
Do you think they’re going to cut off the gravy train by claiming anything different? There’s
too much money floating around the climate change environment.
There have been too many times in the past where “The science is settled” was claimed,
yet later proven wrong, for any reasoning individual to believe that the science is settled
today, just because the scientists who are paid to do so are making that same false claim
now. And until the proponents of man-caused climate change disrupt their own lifestyles
to fight climate change, the rest of us are certainly unwilling to do so.
We can be led, but we will not be forced.
That’s what makes your claims worthless… It’s up to you, and others who believe the
same as you, to lead the way. But you aren’t, so all of your claims of impending disaster
ring false and hollow.
There’s way more money on the other side. Saudi Aramco alone is worth maybe $ 2 000 000 000 000
But yeah. I’ll knock it off.
The question is not which sponsor has the most money. The question
is which sponsor spends the most on their position.
The US government spends a fortune on climate research that agrees
with one point of view, does Saudi Aramco spend more?
Actually they’re a bad example. I don’t know much about the company, nor their PR spendings.
Also they seem to claim to be working on lowering the carbon troughput.
Companies like Exxon are known to have spent billions and billions in “anti climate PR” over the
last decades.
And, what every one is conveniently forgetting.!? Ice Age Cycles..
we are at/near the end of a ice cycle going into a ‘greenhouse’ cycle..
yes, yes,. people ARE adding to it. (planes grounding after 911,
actually changed the weather patterns..)(also covid-19 lockdown
changed patterns..) BUT, that does not change the ‘cycle’ ,, in the
next 300 to 500 years the average day time temp will be 100f..
world temp average is 57f ,,
https://www.climate.gov/media/12885
No they’re not forgetting this. In fact there are recent studies that clearly show
we should be on our way back to the next cold period, and would be if not for
the CO2 we’re adding to the equation.
Also the cycles you mentioned are on a different time scale. Ice ages come and go over
tens of thousands of years. Current climate change is in the scale of centuries or even decades.
The 100°F you mention scare me more than just a bit, by the way.
A world where the AVERAGE temperature is that high … we’d be dead long before that.
hence why “we are near/at the end”.. the ‘next’ ice age is due in
50,000 years peaking at 80,000 years… BUT,, due to greenhouse-ing
an man,. the heat should start around 300y an max at 500 years..
IF we fix mans interference.. otherwise the ‘greenhouse’ will push
back the timeline.. they are saying at least 100,000 years…
https://www.earthdate.org/episodes/greenhouse-icehouse-earth
I believe it is time to end this discussion. Everything that needed to be said,
has been said.
We return to the “No politics, religion or environmental” rule.
We now return to the entertainment. Thank you.
Well said. Thank-you. Nuff said.
Sorry PC I seem to trigger people here I’ll be quiet a while.
Don’t stop, please.
I am the last word, and I let it happen.
I’m sorry I poked it with a stick…