 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 207
Sorry, Karla, not Karal.
- - - Updated - - -
You appear to have missed this bit:Originally Posted by Mark L
"The warranty on the new battery is the same as it is in a brand new LEAF — 8 years/100,000 miles against defects and 5 years/60,000 miles against capacity loss."
Last edited by John King; 01-10-2019 at 9:27pm.
Threadstarter
Good grief ..... I think I've met The Human Tangent !!
I was perhaps the one who initially highlighted the need for climate change action, and my solutions are pretty fundamental. Take heed of the science, urge our politicians to act upon that science, and let's collectively work to undo the damage we have created.
What you have done is to side-track the core issue by introducing population control as a substitute central precept, yet with no proposals to address that problem. So I repeat - given that I have clearly outlined what the core problem is and what we should do about it, do you have a solution to the population issue and if not what are we achieving by going round and round in circles over it ???
"If you want to be a better photographer, stand in front of more interesting stuff.” — Jim Richardson
Well, back in "the 80s" the message was that methane gas (CH4) is a "much worse"
greenhouse gas (GHG) than CO2! They did the arithmetic and found that:
CH4 / CO2 = 23 X "much worse"
Now on the news they're saying to burn the methane that escapes [mostly from household waste] that just
goes to landfill and produce CO2 instead.
It's an interesting idea, but it illustrates that the problem is not 1-dimensional.
CC, Image editing OK.
Threadstarter
You're not wrong! Each year that passes uncovers problems that no-one had previously considered. The current focus on micro plastics is one that springs to mind. It is indeed a multi-dimensional issue, and the solutions are both behavioural and political.
One of the issues is trying to get short term governments to think with long term perspectives, and that includes people's attitudes generally. Self-interest is a very powerful force.
h, in my missive above, I neglected to specify that the suggestion was not to just
-off CH4 willy-nilly, but to use it to produce other forms of energy.
Wow. How have a missed this little gem of a thread? Electric cars sound fine (although I am not convinced that lithium batteries are that environmentally friendly) but what happens when everyone gets home at night and plugs their car in? More baseload energy is required. Solar can't provide baseload energy at night and wind power is flukey. I don't understand why people don't acknowledge that nuclear power should be included in the mix.
No CO2 emissions. Can provide base load power 24/7. Not likely to be affected by an earthquake or tsunami in Australia. Sure, it needs a lot of water but we could fix that up if people would agree on putting in some dams. Of course, we will have nuclear waste but it is reasonably low grade and we have plenty of sites where we could store it.
We could use the electricity to manufacture hydrogen for use in transport and for export. Nuclear base load power for the electricity grid and hydrogen powered transport domestically and a new export product. Sounds like a plan to me.
Andrew
What?! - Get away with yer... - That's way too sensible
- - - Updated - - -
We're too busy beingof things like nuclear (mainly because the ideas about it are made unclear
)
and asbest
video games for mental exercise, and exercising our democratic right when we have to
Last edited by ameerat42; 02-10-2019 at 9:55am.
Haven't we stuff nature around enough already?
Dams only work if there's rain. And the amount of water needed requires desalination and nuclear plants on the coast.
Developing technologies will deal with the base load problem eventually. Maybe even quicker then it would take to build a nuclear power plant.
A stronger argument against nuclear power stations is that they will be built and operated by OS interests and their output
sold back to us at radiation-burn prices, to match what's happening already.
Yep, gotta love the folks that get their 'facts' from ScoMo and Alan Jones. Maybe they should rename themselves the ostrich party.
Pissing on the parade of people who are actually trying to do something positive instead of sitting back and accelerating the process is hardly constructive.
Threadstarter
It is extraordinary. As a general rule, I find that when I delve into that mindset there is a huge lack of informed knowledge underlying those beliefs. Generally, the "evidence" provided comes from websites which have been deliberately created to provide that ubiquitous "fake news" . I spoke with a very right wing denier recently who proudly directed me to such a site. She went very quiet when I pointed out the site's history and how it had been banned as a result of its past misleading performance.
Bob. It's bad enuff that people have got no branes
It's sadder that they've got no brains!
Up until this evening I was celebrating NOT living in the USA.
But tonight's news about our own leader made me despair
That's one approach to ideas, facts and reasoning that don't support your own prejudices ...
How many glaciers are there on this planet? Valid question, no definitive answer. The answer appears to be between 100,000 and 200,000. In 2005, NASA estimated around 150,000.
Of whatever number of glaciers there actually are, how many do humans actually know anything about? Estimates I have read suggest that we know the mass, length and status of between 10 and 20%.
None of the above can possibly form a valid basis for the absolutist, religious views expressed by the proponents of HCC. Delusional views? Probably ...
Threadstarter
I've been despairing for years ..... over time, we always copy or import everything from the US. Looks like stupidity is a tariff free import ....Bob. It's bad enuff that people have got no branes
It's sadder that they've got no brains!
Up until this evening I was celebrating NOT living in the USA.
But tonight's news about our own leader made me despair
- - - Updated - - -
Unfortunately, cherry picking concepts or statistics, or selectively choosing information sources is the primary tool of misinformation. The first step should be to line up all of the reliable, proven sources of information. The second is to evaluate the overall consensus, and to see what informed views have concluded. Simply adopting an alternative view and then scouring the planet for any group that supports that view is not a reliable evaluative method. Religion simply has no bearing on ... well, anything.
Ok. So what is your solution?
We can't look to hydro because a dam will interrupt the Mary Valley lungfish (or other fish) breeding route. We can't look to wind because it will disrupt the Orange Bellied Parrot migration or knock a few Wedge Tailed Eagles to the ground. Solar only works half the day and battery technology is getting there but not viable yet.
Snowy 2.0 was briefly put on hold because environmentalists were concerned about redfin being pumped upstream where they would eat native fish. Ethanol from cane sugar is an option but cane farmers are supposedly destroying the Barrier reef with run off.
Geodynamics had a crack at thermal power from hot rocks but that was not viable. There are solar stations supported by small gas fired power stations that fire up when the sun goes down but well you know, coal seam gas isn't the flavour of the month.
The problem at present is that no one is ready to compromise and map a plan that might take 20 years to change over. People support Greta Thunberg saying, "How dare you!" but no one ever comes up with a clear plan or path to 100% renewables. (Don't start me on Greta - a privileged person growing up in a developed country whose wealth was built on timber, car manufacturing, iron and steel, etc. in effect telling people in India that they need to continue burning dung to cook their meals rather than transitioning to a developed economy).
Street marching makes people feel like they are doing something useful but it doesn't lay out a clear path to change. Plus, climate change is kind of a first world problem. I don't see people street marching to get action on malaria, which kills near enough to a half a million people each year. Or cholera or dysentery, which kill another half a million. Or diabetes, which kills another 1.5 million. Or demanding action against the innumerable dictatorships in third world countries where the people are subjugated and killed in their millions.
Sure, everybody needs to acknowledge that we need to make some changes. The reality is that it needs to be a incremental change with buy in from all sides. Catastrophising climate change only polarises opinions and doesn't bring any real change.
Happy to discuss.
Bob, how is it that every fact presented by anyone is "cherry picking concepts or statistics, or selectively choosing information sources is the primary tool of misinformation."?
I could bombard you with hundreds, if not thousands, of similar facts and failures of explicit knowledge, spanning dozens of disciplines. You still would not acknowledge that there is a vast amount of information from highly respected sources and institutions of which you appear to be completely unaware.
Yet you speak of ignorance on the part of others ...
And, on a lighter note...did someone mention politicians?(sound on)
Threadstarter
Some excellent issues and observations there ........ however, it misses the key element upon which this thread is based. Solutions to the problem are themselves problematic, BUT .... those who must evaluate all those possible solutions will not do so until they accept the basic premise - i.e. that there is a problem.
No single "solution" will cure that problem, and as you so rightly point out, each possibility has complications - both political and physical. Greta is simply using the only ammunition at her disposal to try and energise the world's leaders to take those steps that they are unwilling to take. It matters not whether she is privileged or not, and to suggest otherwise effectively disenfranchises all those among us who might be similarly privileged. Everyone has the right to be outraged, and her outrage is having a far greater impact than would be the case if you or I were to do the same.
You are also correct in saying that there are many other issues and deficiencies in our world which deserve our collective attention, but again, that does not invalidate climate action as a compelling issue.
Ours is a deeply flawed world run by deeply flawed people, but nothing will change that unless we collectively begin to change. Quiet lobbying and respectful negotiation has achieved nothing, so if there's a snowflake's hope in hell that more direct action can inspire change, then that's so much better than sitting back and allowing inaction to reduce us to a stagnating life form on a poisoned planet.
- - - Updated - - -
Of course you could, and that's exactly my point. Your sources would not have the same level of authority, the same pedigrees and the same credibility. The fact that you can find *some* places that dispute human induced climate change is irrelevant. The global consensus has long since taken the collective view that HICC is a very real and serious issue. You won't find a similar number of globally respected scientific bodies who hold an opposite view, and that's simply because despite your claims, the weight of global opinion does not disagree with that basic premise. Sure, you can find examples of past failures, but that's really a red herring. Of course there have been failures, but the weight of evidence on this issue is simply overwhelming.
When all else has failed abysmally, shoot the messenger, or at least resort to the argumentum ad hominem.
How can you possibly refute any source or conclusion without any knowledge of them?
Short answer: it is impossible, and makes your 'argument' look even more ridiculous, as you automatically assume that all contrary sources and information are flawed or wrong. That looks like religious belief to me, not science.
BTW, you might like to look up the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority ...
^^It's fallen upon frequently by a certain politician
Posting Permissions
