LaxPower Back-Up Stick

I was just thinking that historically it’s been mostly lib states that emit so much ozone-destroying pollution. New Jersey comes to mind.

So if the Gulf waters actually ever rise (they haven’t, but I’m reliably informed by lib Fanlax that some day they will!!), will you lefties pay for my beach replenishment projects? Seems only fair.

Let me know your positions. Thanks.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:58 pm I was just thinking that historically it’s been mostly lib states that emit so much ozone-destroying pollution. New Jersey comes to mind.

So if the Gulf waters actually ever rise (they haven’t, but I’m reliably informed by lib Fanlax that some day they will!!), will you lefties pay for my beach replenishment projects? Seems only fair.

Let me know your positions. Thanks.

... ozone or lack thereof has nothing to do with sea level rise.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:37 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:58 pm I was just thinking that historically it’s been mostly lib states that emit so much ozone-destroying pollution. New Jersey comes to mind.

So if the Gulf waters actually ever rise (they haven’t, but I’m reliably informed by lib Fanlax that some day they will!!), will you lefties pay for my beach replenishment projects? Seems only fair.

Let me know your positions. Thanks.

... ozone or lack thereof has nothing to do with sea level rise.

It really doesn’t matter what’s causing the seas to rise so much, or when they do.

Manhattan was supposed to be 10’ under by now, right! The Arctic was supposed to ice free by 2014!!

Oh al gore. Where have you gone bro!

Let’s go enviro wackdom!!!

Don't remember anyone making those predictions. Could you please document them. Thanks in advance.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:42 pm Don't remember anyone making those predictions. Could you please document them. Thanks in advance.

Even the bozos at lib Politifact rate this mostly true.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... tic-ice-w/

Why do we need to do libs’ work for them?

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:45 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:42 pm Don't remember anyone making those predictions. Could you please document them. Thanks in advance.

Even the bozos at lib Politifact rate this mostly true.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... tic-ice-w/

Why do we need to do libs’ work for them?

So a politician said the artic would be free of ice. Any recognized scientist say that??
How about NY city being that far underwater. Again, scientists??

jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:00 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:45 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:42 pm Don't remember anyone making those predictions. Could you please document them. Thanks in advance.

Even the bozos at lib Politifact rate this mostly true.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... tic-ice-w/

Why do we need to do libs’ work for them?

So a politician said the artic would be free of ice. Any recognized scientist say that??
How about NY city being that far underwater. Again, scientists??

Libs are relentlessly dunce.

I give you facts now you demand more.

Gonna watch Snoop on The Voice. Revel in your dunderheadedness.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:02 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:00 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:45 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:42 pm Don't remember anyone making those predictions. Could you please document them. Thanks in advance.

Even the bozos at lib Politifact rate this mostly true.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... tic-ice-w/

Why do we need to do libs’ work for them?

So a politician said the artic would be free of ice. Any recognized scientist say that??
How about NY city being that far underwater. Again, scientists??

Libs are relentlessly dunce.

I give you facts now you demand more.

Gonna watch Snoop on The Voice. Revel in your dunderheadedness.

... your claims dumbass. You said it, now prove it.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:02 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:00 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:45 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:42 pm Don't remember anyone making those predictions. Could you please document them. Thanks in advance.

Even the bozos at lib Politifact rate this mostly true.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... tic-ice-w/

Why do we need to do libs’ work for them?

So a politician said the artic would be free of ice. Any recognized scientist say that??
How about NY city being that far underwater. Again, scientists??

Libs are relentlessly dunce.

I give you facts now you demand more.

Gonna watch Snoop on The Voice. Revel in your dunderheadedness.

... your claims dumbass. You said it, now prove it.

Still waiting for your video proof (especially the one from the NYT) in the Toledo case.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:08 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:02 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:00 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:45 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:42 pm Don't remember anyone making those predictions. Could you please document them. Thanks in advance.

Even the bozos at lib Politifact rate this mostly true.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... tic-ice-w/

Why do we need to do libs’ work for them?

So a politician said the artic would be free of ice. Any recognized scientist say that??
How about NY city being that far underwater. Again, scientists??

Libs are relentlessly dunce.

I give you facts now you demand more.

Gonna watch Snoop on The Voice. Revel in your dunderheadedness.

... your claims dumbass. You said it, now prove it.

Still waiting for your video proof (especially the one from the NYT) in the Toledo case.

We are in the global warming thread, not the race thread. I’m too scared that seas will rise 1,000 feet to bother with other subjects. Waaaaaaaaahhhhhh.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp

Correction... this is the green new steal. This is how the FLP environmental fruitloops make their money.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:38 pm https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp

Correction... this is the green new steal. This is how the FLP environmental fruitloops make their money.

If they were serious about change now, using current proven technology, the sea lanes would be jammed with LNG tankers bound for China, India, & the rest of the developing world to retrofit existing coal fired power plants & build new ones using natural gas, until developing technology makes renewables feasible, on a massive scale. That would have an immediate positive impact.

Russia is anxious to meet that demand.
https://www.rt.com/russia/521720-china- ... s-gazprom/

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:47 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:38 pm https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp

Correction... this is the green new steal. This is how the FLP environmental fruitloops make their money.

If they were serious about change now, using current proven technology, the sea lanes would be jammed with LNG tankers bound for China, India, & the rest of the developing world to retrofit existing coal fired power plants & build new ones using natural gas, until developing technology makes renewables feasible, on a massive scale. That would have an immediate positive impact.

Russia is anxious to meet that demand.
https://www.rt.com/russia/521720-china- ... s-gazprom/

ahhh, back to shilling for Putin and his kleptocracy?

There are indeed short term moves that are "serious", but they're short term and have significant negative implications in unwinding.

And yeah, renewables are already "feasible" on a massive scale...and more so rapidly.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:13 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:47 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:38 pm https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp

Correction... this is the green new steal. This is how the FLP environmental fruitloops make their money.

If they were serious about change now, using current proven technology, the sea lanes would be jammed with LNG tankers bound for China, India, & the rest of the developing world to retrofit existing coal fired power plants & build new ones using natural gas, until developing technology makes renewables feasible, on a massive scale. That would have an immediate positive impact.

Russia is anxious to meet that demand.
https://www.rt.com/russia/521720-china- ... s-gazprom/

ahhh, back to shilling for Putin and his kleptocracy?

There are indeed short term moves that are "serious", but they're short term and have significant negative implications in unwinding.

And yeah, renewables are already "feasible" on a massive scale...and more so rapidly.

Just the opposite, I want the US to beat him into those markets.
If we don't supply NG, he will.

US has already reduced its carbon emission by half. We got the easy half. But the other half is looking easier than it was previously thought. Emission timelines and targets likely to be moved up.

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:35 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:13 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:47 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:38 pm https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp

Correction... this is the green new steal. This is how the FLP environmental fruitloops make their money.

If they were serious about change now, using current proven technology, the sea lanes would be jammed with LNG tankers bound for China, India, & the rest of the developing world to retrofit existing coal fired power plants & build new ones using natural gas, until developing technology makes renewables feasible, on a massive scale. That would have an immediate positive impact.

Russia is anxious to meet that demand.
https://www.rt.com/russia/521720-china- ... s-gazprom/

ahhh, back to shilling for Putin and his kleptocracy?

There are indeed short term moves that are "serious", but they're short term and have significant negative implications in unwinding.

And yeah, renewables are already "feasible" on a massive scale...and more so rapidly.

Just the opposite, I want the US to beat him into those markets.
If we don't supply NG, he will.

Good point, much prefer that too!
That said, it's a short-lived market, or at least should be.

My sense is that there will be a massive push to drive the cost of renewables lower. It's pretty darn remarkable how fast that's already going.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:38 pm US has already reduced its carbon emission by half. We got the easy half. But the other half is looking easier than it was previously thought. Emission timelines and targets likely to be moved up.

Encouraging article but it soft pedals the still missing link :

Using this much wind and solar raises the question of how to meet the last portion of demand on cloudy or windless days. Many technologies could fill this gap, such as longer-duration storage, hydrogen or synthetic fuels, fossil or biomass generation with carbon capture, advanced nuclear power, and geothermal energy. All require more research.

That's fine for 1st world nations, but China, India & the rest of the developing world aren't there yet. That's why they have longer, lower targets.

We know much of our progress has been due to the shift from coal to NG. We're allowing China, India & much of the developing world to skip that step, which would reduce carbon emissions significantly, for sure, in the near term, in hopes that the silver bullet tech breakthrough will emerge.

I advocate going for the immediate, near tearm, certain savings from the coal to NG conversion now, while continuing to pursue the possible silver bullet for the long term.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/se ... cientists/

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:50 pm The price of fracking.

Have you stopped eating meat yet ?