The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

I'm not a proponent of lumping all sources of "RE" together to get a high number and implying it as a modern success story. hydro is already fully utilized in developed countries like UK and Germany. And they both get 2 times more energy from fire wood than from wind and solar combined. It is misleading because when the media says "RE", most people think they are talking about wind and solar.
.
Rural Afghanistan is the world leader, getting 97% of their energy from "RE"...
.
using firewood and dung.
.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...nable_energies
.
UK currently gets 2.2% from wind, some of it offshore, and .5% from solar. If UK wants 50% of it's energy from wind, an area equivilent to 1/4 of the country will be required for the wind farms. If they want the other half from solar, another 1/8 of the land mass will be needed for the solar farms.

Be very careful who's numbers you use.
Scientists are finding statistical numbers,data,models,methodologies,non-accessible to fact-checking.
They could be viewed with the same suspicion as Arthur Anderson's book-keeping for ENRON.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Scientists created ways to produce clean treated water along 20 century, a revolution at the time, and today fight to find better and more economic ways to bring clean treated water to help poor countries or ways to recycle water in places with limited water resources.

But wait, californian millionares are paying more than 5 dollars per liter of dirty water :

Silicon Valley’s Next Big Idea: Untreated Drinking Water | Fortune

https://www.menshealth.com/trending-...er-overpriced/


If I get water from my toilet, and label as natural water rich in probiotics, I bet there will be milionaires to buy it.

Disgruntled 5-Star chefs/restaurants in Paris have been serving this to 1%-ers for decades now.The joke is on the rich.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Energy per capta???

Well, how much it's also from industries (energy consumed by a country divided by the number of population ? WHat is the energy per capta for just home consumers and schools worplace (lighting and heating and cooling of rooms) and energy for meals and services like cleaning, clothes washing?

Is that graphic including industries energy connsumed too ?



Home and workplace rooms alone it's one thing. Industry it's another, very different.

For the United States,the US Department of Commerce would have all those statistics.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

I agree with you. But the problem it's to make it worldwide, since if we tax too much the country get less competitive with other countries that don't give a damn to ecology or to the planet's future.

In democracies,it would take a 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' scenario,before they'd be willing to entertain a different government scenario which was authorized to act in a timely fashion to avert disaster.And therein lies the paradox.
By the time voters are willing to allow 'rational' governance,we'll be beyond all tipping points and headed over the cliff.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

That is the big problem with trying to change things with a carbon tax . It would have to be the same world wide to be fair. And would ideally be applied immediately as the carbon leaves the ground so that the market pricing is directly affected. Although it is much easier to tax the purchase of the final product. Who collects and who disperses the revenue? This would be a tax and a pay raise for 90% of our virtual workers and finish crushing the lower classes and crash the economy unless it was given back progressively to people with less income.

Detroit,Michigan,today,is providing new homes at $1/sq-ft.
Monthly mortgage payments are $400.
College kids in Denton,Texas are paying $1,200 / month for rent.
Do you see any opportunities for the lower class?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

We do not need Europes problems here.

We have them.

[All Darc]

There is no intelligent life form on Earth !

That's the report of the Alien Comission.

Originally Posted by aerohead

In democracies,it would take a 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' scenario,before they'd be willing to entertain a different government scenario which was authorized to act in a timely fashion to avert disaster.And therein lies the paradox.
By the time voters are willing to allow 'rational' governance,we'll be beyond all tipping points and headed over the cliff.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

And it woks.
If it doesn't work then that means people are stupid enough to fall for his hypochondriac bull. I refuse to believe the vast majority of people are that stupid.
No comment on how in his movie he said sea levels would rise 10 feet by 2013 or 2014, then buys a beach front mansion a few years later, likely using money made off that film?

If you want to see literally every failed inconvenient truth prediction just search "inconvenient truth memes".

I replayed and audited the entire program,plus the special feature addendum to the movie.
Gore mentioned a potential 20-foot sea-level rise,for a number of scenarios associated with Greenland and Antarctica,and NEVER mentioned a time-frame whatsoever.
There are some glaciologists today,that are warning of 10-13 feet rapid sea-level rise,associated with observed ice-sheet instability.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Another comparison:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent
So the average yearly electricity usage of an American household equals about 10 ton of TNT.
That's quite a blast. One Hiroshima bomb for every village of 1500 homes, yearly.

Al Gore will likely use one Hiroshima equivalent in his lifetime, alone.
How inconvenient.

Also,one gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 10-sticks of TNT.With the proper stoichiometric ratio,you can blow a city block off the face of the Earth with a single gallon.

I've blown my Honda CRX up to 82-miles {sideways}.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Heck they can't even tax gas to fight global warming in france.
Plus they are doing it all wrong. A bottom up tax will have no measurable effect on saving the world.

One premise for a tax,is to pay for job training for those who'll be losing their fossil-fuel jobs.All of us who've consumed fossil fuels have contributed to the reason fossil fuels need to go away,so it's only fair,that we help our neighbors transition to a new form of income,with the least disruption to their lives as possible.