The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Scale. Growth.
.
Between 1997 and 2017, global electricity output climbed an average 571 terawatt-hours per year. Merely keeping pace with growth in electric demand would require installing 14 times as much photovoltaic capacity as Germany’s entire installed base, and it would have to do so every year.
.
or wind.
.
Thus, just to keep pace with growth in electrical demand, the world would have to install twice as much wind-energy capacity as now exists in all of China, and it would have to do so annually.
.
And that is just growth of electricity consumption. Not to mention replacing all electricity. And then replacing all the remainder of primary energy consumption which is another 4 times electricity.
.
the world’s demand for oil will hit a record 100 million barrels per day. That would be an increase of about 1.8 million barrels per day over 2017 numbers.
.
global solar production totaled the equivalent of about 2 million barrels of oil. Just enough to match the growth in oil consumption if we weren't already comparing solar to the growth in electrical consumption. And oil is only 40% of primary energy.
.
.
https://nypost.com/2018/11/16/the-nu...y-decade-soon/

Just as a thought experiment,with the premise that global climate change actually existed,what would your roadmap be if we were tasked with transitioning off fossil fuel combustion?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I bet Siberia is really great full for their global warming.



Why is the pot calling the kettle black?
Plus what part of 27 states is "local weather"?

Yeah,they're lovin' it.No need for night lighting.They've got kilometer-wide burning methane plumes to light their way for free.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

You assume way, way to much.

Is the originator of the article “The Washington Post” lying also?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energ...=.1b5f7f6fad2d



What was “Unfortunate” for them was that they got caught.

A independent scientist noticed that their calculations didn’t add up.


https://www.nicholaslewis.org/


His paper outlines the errors in the original report.

To which the original authors admitted to.

https://www.nicholaslewis.org/wp-con...906ff-36424229


I guess some people think math don’t be like it is. But it do...



>

I read the piece.They say that the central argument remains the same,just not with as much statistical precision.
Not as bad as ENRON and Arthur Andersen though.They just completely made stuff up.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Everyone who doesn't believe and go along with the man made global warming narrative is automatically a liar,.

If you really want to more effectively debate,you could study what the 'believers' study.I guarantee that your genitals will not fall off.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

"When the Soviet Union was wound up the Russian economy collapsed. Between 1989 and 1998, fuel related emissions fell in that country by 5.2% per annum because economic activity halved. However, this was no model to copy. It was a period of deep crisis. The death rate, particularly among young Russian men, soared."
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...-mainstream-2/
.

How is this germane to a discussion on climate change?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Rearanging is the only solution. We are not going to build our way out of resource depletion.

Tell that to Gary Cohn at Goldman Sachs.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

You should read the comments on face book on sponsored posts on alternative energy.
There are no shortage of genuine idiots.
People think electric car batteries last 4 years, hydrogen for hydrogen cars is going to all come from water, all our power can easily come from solar panels, there is absolutely no need for nuclear power generation in the future.

Why do you look at that stuff?

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

The quote you've attributed to me,I never posted.

"My browser does not give me a broken red line for heatwave, but says that freebeard should be capitalized."

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

You should read the comments on face book on sponsored posts on alternative energy.
There are no shortage of genuine idiots.

You should find a way to read them without going to Facespook itself, lest you become one too. That's what Facespook do.

Originally Posted by sendler

Rearanging is the only solution. We are not going to build our way out of resource depletion.

Disruptive technological advance is technically re-arranging, so yeah.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

If you happen to live on top of a mountain, I could go way more ambitious and beam it to your undisclosed and uber hidden location. I just need a bearing to point the antenna. Oh, and you'd have to mount/aim the very directional antenna at your location too.

I can tell when I'm being socially engineered.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

If you really want to more effectively debate,you could study what the 'believers' study.I guarantee that your genitals will not fall off.

Yeah I did that for a while, waste of time. Why do you think my go to's are cherry picking, data manipulation and data exclusion.
What's really important is how they want to "fix the problem", which usually isn't even a solution it usually ends up being self inflicted punishment to feel better about the problem.
Everything kept leading back to the money.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I marvel at your ability to know things in advance.
Where were you when the Tonkin Gulf Incident took place?
You could have saved us 58,000 dead,and hundreds of thousands of disabled vets.

I didn't say it, nasa did.