The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

No clue what you are talking about. I am talking about how to do anything at all with less units of energy and the more carbon neutral that energy is the better. As far a banning air travel or anything else you just never know.

Just that it was a very specific 'anything at all'. I scrolled up the page and didn't find an antecedent. If you retro-fit your trailer start a build thread. If it's carbon neutral it will depend on the tow vehicle's motive power for regen.

As far as air travel — opportunity cost, unintended consequence, etc. Low and slow Zeppelins were the best.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerostealth

Which part of using 1/3rd the energy at 1/2 the cost to go camping with enough energy on board to not even have to plug in at a camp site are you not getting? We tow a 5th wheel which could really benefit from having it own battery pack for stand alone power and an electric drive to assist our truck in moving the rig up to speed from a stop, climbing hills, and regenerative braking.

If money is no object and you don't mind buying a truck that costs more than the average house, with a battery that will probably cost more than a tesla and will need to be replaced every 6 to 10 years.
My 2011 leaf got a new battery in 2014 and it will probably get another one in 2020.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Even if they were, eliminating 'farting' cows and replacing everybody's house seals the deal. Individually they're not so much of a problem (floating undersea hyperloops) but all of it all at once will ...what? Gag the golden goose?

Not trying to talk over you aerostealth. Had the subject of pusher trailers come up before?

Pusher trailers that use liquid fuel likely outlawed too.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

.


“Global warming ‘provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism.”

~Margaret Thatcher



>

I'd love to purchase solar, wind, insulation, quad-pane windows,and doors at cost,with no middlemen,advertising costs,manufactured with profit-less,wholesale power,from publicly-owned providers,on a publicly-owned grid,for mills per kWh.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

I hope batteries drop in price and grow in energy density. But at present time lithium it's expensive, very expensive...

Maybe in countries with prime weather predictions, they could manage industry activity to work more or more intnese in days of strong winds.

probably cheaper than global warming.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

V2G is a no brainer if we really think we will have hundreds of millions of 2 ton electric cars on the road as we do ice vehicles now. Just don't think that that will be even close to enough battery storage to keep up with our current level of energy use after fossil fuels. There will be a big change in lifestyle coming for the middle classes in developed nations.
.
We would be much wiser to look one further step ahead than that and realize that owning a personal car for billions of people is completely unsustainable even on the 30 year time frame of what it takes to change everything so OECD civilization can bend back down to something functional without them.

I would argue that the 'current' level of energy use is not an absolute,necessitating renewable build-out to match.
In past times,during global emergencies,per-capita energy consumption has been severely curtailed,including rationing,complete abolition of certain activities for the duration,35-mph speed limits,etc.,until the danger passed.
It's simple,but not easy.
The propaganda ministries would have to go to work weaving patriotism,Chevrolet,and Mom's apple pie into the public consciousness to get everyone on board.Make everyone feel good about doing their part.Of which we have experts.
We've done it before.If we had to,we could do it again.Trade short-term inconvenience for long-term benefit,coming out the other side more resilient and sustainable.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22069768


In 2003, her book Statecraft recanted her earlier views, casting doubt on "alarmist" science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - a body she helped to create - and warning that: "The new dogma about climate change has swept through the left-of-centre governing classes."

She said the international effort to tackle climate change "provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism".



Was Margaret Thatcher the first climate sceptic?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...e-sceptic.html



In bringing this about, Mrs Thatcher played an important part. It is not widely appreciated, however, that there was a dramatic twist to her story. In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed "Hot Air and Global Warming", she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views.

She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us. Pouring scorn on the "doomsters", she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of "costly and economically damaging" schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind.
In other words, long before it became fashionable, Lady Thatcher was converted to the view of those who, on both scientific and political grounds, are profoundly sceptical of the climate change ideology. Alas, what she set in train earlier continues to exercise its baleful influence to this day.

But the fact that she became one of the first and most prominent of "climate sceptics" has been almost entirely buried from view.





>

Seems like progress and prosperity has been the problem.These are conceptual constructions which do not reside outside the minds of man.
An incomparably larger universe exists than meets the eye of the capitalist.
It may be the chimeras of economic fantasy which ultimately unhinge the material world.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Blaming every disaster on climate change cost the US 91 billion dollars last year. The government wants a few hundred billion dollars per year to fix it.
I have a feeling that if the government confiscates 200 billion dollars per year we will still have natural disasters....
The only thing that will change is my account ballance.



I'm going to have to say that back fired on them.

It's agreed,that mitigation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions,and their removal down to pre-industrial ppnv,could only restore 'disaster' frequency and magnitude back to pre-industrial levels.
Climate-related losses for 2018 are reported at $300-billion.That's a lot of beer and nachos.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Storage is not cheap.
If I go off grid the largest expenditure by far will be the batteries.
Your blind optimism isn't fooling anyone.

You say "nuclear is more expensive" it's not more expensive than wind that doesn't work at night covered by batteries that are unaffordable. There's no way to build enough batteries to cover the power that could be produced by a nuclear plant at night, cost less than a nuclear power plant and last 40 or 50 years.

What you say may be true.Whether or not you can sell people on nuclear is probably the sticking point.

[All Darc]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/hum...-emissions.htm