The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I imagine machines are what largely eliminated slavery, not simply enlightened moral values.

Losing the productivity of machines and cheap abundant energy would put human morality at risk.

I would never use those words together in a sentence associated with fossil fuels.
In retrospect,they've turned out to be the most expensive,amoral, ever conceived.

[All Darc]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Incandescent light bulbs were 2% efficient and a great market success for 137-years!

[redpoint5]

Naw, having an opportunity to benefit others and refusing is amoral. This entire discussion is possible due to fossil fuels. Had we not utilized them, most of us wouldn't even be alive for starters, and those that were would be outside plowing fields with oxen only to die at 40 or sooner.

How many of us on here are over 40? We're all dead without fossil fuels. Everyone else has a foot in the grave.

There is a moral case for fossil fuels, and that shouldn't even have to be stated given the exceedingly apparent examples of it absolutely everywhere we look.

Since there's a moral case for utilizing fossil fuels, there's a moral case for utilizing it wisely, which entails using it efficiently. The idea being to maximize the good that it does and extend out the timeframe we have to leverage such a gift.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

It is painfully quite obvious to me that there is no chance of replacing even a fraction of the fossil energy we are now using. Things will be much smaller and simpler again in the mid future after the carbon pulse.
.
Rather than blindly wishing for a wind and solar transition to replace even half of that chart, we would be much better off to accept that it is not physically possible and start to focus on easing into the social changes that will be abruptly and painfully forced on us if no early actions are taken.

I'm kinda growing tired of the broken-record Nate Hagens' dissertation.
I'll continue to recommend the B.S.in Mechanical Engineering,then see if you change your song.
I thank those who've lost their carbon-vision and and have seen a different paradigm for the taking.
The only blindness I see now is from carbon scales covering people's eyes.
You'd make an excellent attack dog,or shill for the fossil-fuel lobby.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I'm kinda growing tired of the broken-record Nate Hagens' dissertation.
I'll continue to recommend the B.S.in Mechanical Engineering,then see if you change your song.
I thank those who've lost their carbon-vision and and have seen a different paradigm for the taking.
The only blindness I see now is from carbon scales covering people's eyes.
You'd make an excellent attack dog,or shill for the fossil-fuel lobby.

Did you read MacKay or Murphy? To name just a couple more. You might respect their degrees in Physics better?
.

Originally Posted by sendler

I too have noticed that engineer types are more adept at understanding the scale of our energy consumption and the possibilty of replacing it with rebuildables than economists or politicians. Your growing disdain for Hagens is very surprising to me. But then again he walked away from a $500,000/ year career on Wall Street 20 years ago when he realized big money was ruining the planet. And went back to school only to get a doctorate in environmental science from a custom program at U of Vermont, and was lead editor at The Oil Drum for years and has since dedicated his life to trying to help us understand all of this. So what does he know.
.
You might like these physicists better.
.
David MacKay
.
https://youtu.be/E0W1ZZYIV8o
.
https://www.withouthotair.com/
.
And Tom Murphy
.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/post-index/
.

[Xist]

Aerohead, once again I do not see any correlation between your responses and the posts to which you are responding. Please show us where Sendler said "Burn it all!"

Please explain how we are supposed to transition from carbon to renewable energy, using small words, and spaces after punctuation. Please explain how renewable energy is supposed to keep the poor warm in the winter in this country, let alone in third-world countries. Please explain how semis, ships, and planes are supposed to go electric.

Please stop telling people to earn a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering until you have a P.h.D. in environmental sciences.

Or why don't you stop hanging out with unwashed heathens and find some intellectual peers?

[All Darc]

Fossil fuels made possible a lot of advanceas. But most of it was wasted.
Look what we do today. Most production it's for futility. We buy things that don't last, specially if from Cihna, thing that broke easy and we replace with new ones, and the new ones took energy and did polutes to manufecture. Cheap low quality things that polutes as much as high quality things.

Just a fraction of money/investments was used to science development, and only a fraction was used to study ways to go greener.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Xist

Aerohead, are you quoting Sendler and responding to someone completely different? At what point did Sendler say anything indicating he was pro combustion?

I worry about your reading comprehension.

I suffer from late-onset perspicacity disorder.
My formal,and informal education has exposed me to different realities than sendler advocates as the only path forwards.Every time he 'speaks' I hear only Nate Hagens,for whom I have extremely little regard.
I see 'dots' and connect the dots,and come up with a different take on potentialities for a path forwards.
'Pro-combustion' is the default reality,if you cannot imagine a change in American consumer/industrial behavior.
And I can tell you that,historically,the power consumption data,and mix he shares is 'provisional',contextual,and arbitrary,and with the stroke of a pen,can be extremely modified (downwards), if (and that's a big if) it were ever to be a priority.
And it can be done with everyone feeling good about it.The United Sates has a historical precedent for this very thing.
And like I've said elsewhere,you're not going to expect a lot from a troglodyte with a single synapse.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

I must agree. I think solar plus wind plus biofeul and other will help, but probably not enough in terms of keep the same cost to produce electricity, unles new breakthroughs arrive.

Civilization needs to start to accept to be more humble, think in simpler life, end ostentation in order to keep safety and confort. We can keep confort, safety and health if we start to cut ostentantion and luxury.
Smaller cars, smaller homes, not junk food using plastic of foam, return to glass bottles to ice drinks instead o pat bottles using plastic.

Adapt home to capture rain water. Adapt washing machines to collect the soap water and rinse water, to help clean ground using it isntead of potable water. Shower water could be captured to use in toilets discharges.

Hot countries took a lot energy with air conditioned. So why not creat cold rooms, like small rooms to cold days, that would demand less air conditioned power, instead of try to cool large rooms ?

The problem is that nobody wants to get humble even a little bit. It's like a chubby guy that wants to lose weight but just waits for a magic chocolate without calories, isntead of reduce food consume and get some exercises.

In the same way countries are greed and competitive, and no country wants to reduce CO2 and polution, since the other countries would produce more and compete more if they forget about ecologic actitudes.

The most dangerous hazard to human species it's the own human species.

I would only argue that,there are many individuals trying to make a difference.You cannot regulate thinking and ideas.
Individuals have always made the difference.
Vote with your currency.It's a perfect democracy.It doesn't
matter what the government is doing.
There's fortunes to be made in renewable energy.Greed alone is enough to drive it.

[Xist]

I asked before, how is pen-stroking working for Macron in France?