On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 16:23:49 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/first-us-nuclear-reactor-built-scratch-decades-enters-commercial-opera-rcna97258

Can we expect more of these as IC cars and gas ranges are banned in the west?

What are your thoughts on this? It is an interesting topic.

"The third and fourth reactors were originally supposed to cost $14 billion, but are now on track to cost their owners $31 billion. That doesn’t include $3.7 billion that original contractor Westinghouse paid to the owners to walk away from the project.
That brings total spending to almost $35 billion."

BARGAIN BASEMENT renewable energy!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/first-us-nuclear-reactor-built-scratch-decades-enters-commercial-opera-rcna97258

Can we expect more of these as IC cars and gas ranges are banned in the
west?

What are your thoughts on this? It is an interesting topic.

--
--Sawfish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Would someone please tell me what 'diddy-wah-diddy' means?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/31/23 9:09 AM, The Iceberg wrote:

On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 16:23:49 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/first-us-nuclear-reactor-built-scratch-decades-enters-commercial-opera-rcna97258

Can we expect more of these as IC cars and gas ranges are banned in the
west?

What are your thoughts on this? It is an interesting topic.

"The third and fourth reactors were originally supposed to cost $14 billion, but are now on track to cost their owners $31 billion. That doesn’t include $3.7 billion that original contractor Westinghouse paid to the owners to walk away from the

project. That brings total spending to almost $35 billion."

BARGAIN BASEMENT renewable energy!

Seriously, here's my point. Let's leave aside over-runs for now.

If everyone is supposed to:

1) drive electric cars

2) cook over electricity

3) likely heat with electricity

we're going to have to build out the grid and generate a lot more
electrical power. Formerly this had fallen to coal, then natural gas,
and some nuke, which has had bad press for quite a while.

There's also a handful of renewables, like wind, tide, hydro, all except
hydro are fairly intermittent and can be prone to breakdown. There was
once a lot of talk about geothermal, but I don't hear much about it
anymore. Solar works but it takes proper sun exposure and ACRES of land
that might otherwise by used in agriculture.

Many people are concerned about global warming and they want to stampede
to electricity as a short.intermediate term solution. But if climate
scientist are to believed, we're past any short term, or even
intermediate term solutions. If by magic and despotism we converted
instantly overnight from current carbon-based consumption to all
electric, nothing will change the fact that so far as significant
warming is concerned, it's a done deal. We would not see improvements
for 500 years or more.

BTW, this is why I think that adaptation is what leaders should make top priority, and not short-term conversion to electricity.

Now all those people who blindly support the *idea* of rapid
conversion--they support the *idea*, but really don't know what it means
for them yet--many also support ecological preservation, dismantling of
hydro dams, etc.  But hydro and wind are not really all that environment friendly, nor are large-scale solar farms. If they want to make a fairly
quick and relatively painless conversion to electric power, nuclear
seems like the best answer.

So for these types of militant electrification wokesters, when it comes
to nuclear power, with minimal immediate environmental effect as
compared to hydro/wind/solar, and greenhouse gas free, it's time to fish
or cut bait. Do you really want electrification, low environmental
impact? If so, you'll need nuclear for probably 200 years.

Or you can block up salmon runs, disrupt migratory bird flyways, and
turn large areas of the flat ground into what amounts to 300 acre carports.

Or you can just shut the fuck up.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Favorite tattoo:

BORN TOULOUSE


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 20:14:18 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:

On 7/31/23 9:09 AM, The Iceberg wrote:

On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 16:23:49 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/first-us-nuclear-reactor-built-scratch-decades-enters-commercial-opera-rcna97258

Can we expect more of these as IC cars and gas ranges are banned in the >> west?

What are your thoughts on this? It is an interesting topic.

"The third and fourth reactors were originally supposed to cost $14 billion, but are now on track to cost their owners $31 billion. That doesn’t include $3.7 billion that original contractor Westinghouse paid to the owners to walk away from the

project. That brings total spending to almost $35 billion."

BARGAIN BASEMENT renewable energy!

Seriously, here's my point. Let's leave aside over-runs for now.

If everyone is supposed to:

1) drive electric cars

2) cook over electricity

3) likely heat with electricity

we're going to have to build out the grid and generate a lot more
electrical power. Formerly this had fallen to coal, then natural gas,
and some nuke, which has had bad press for quite a while.

There's also a handful of renewables, like wind, tide, hydro, all except hydro are fairly intermittent and can be prone to breakdown. There was
once a lot of talk about geothermal, but I don't hear much about it
anymore. Solar works but it takes proper sun exposure and ACRES of land
that might otherwise by used in agriculture.

Many people are concerned about global warming and they want to stampede
to electricity as a short.intermediate term solution. But if climate scientist are to believed, we're past any short term, or even
intermediate term solutions. If by magic and despotism we converted instantly overnight from current carbon-based consumption to all
electric, nothing will change the fact that so far as significant
warming is concerned, it's a done deal. We would not see improvements
for 500 years or more.

BTW, this is why I think that adaptation is what leaders should make top priority, and not short-term conversion to electricity.

Now all those people who blindly support the *idea* of rapid conversion--they support the *idea*, but really don't know what it means
for them yet--many also support ecological preservation, dismantling of hydro dams, etc. But hydro and wind are not really all that environment friendly, nor are large-scale solar farms. If they want to make a fairly quick and relatively painless conversion to electric power, nuclear
seems like the best answer.

So for these types of militant electrification wokesters, when it comes
to nuclear power, with minimal immediate environmental effect as
compared to hydro/wind/solar, and greenhouse gas free, it's time to fish
or cut bait. Do you really want electrification, low environmental
impact? If so, you'll need nuclear for probably 200 years.

Or you can block up salmon runs, disrupt migratory bird flyways, and
turn large areas of the flat ground into what amounts to 300 acre carports.

Or you can just shut the fuck up.

yes agree with all this, as you say if you want all electric cars/buses/ships/planes and re-charging points etc. going to need nuclear or to chop down lots of trees like in Scotland where they chopped down 4 MILLION trees to have some wind power!!
course the wokesters just follow whatever the current thing is, so nuclear/tree-chopping is fine with them now.

Don't have big problem with pushing electric cars cos they are the future like Elon Musk says, but what is concerning is the politicians are clearly doing all this with the evil extra aim of being able to track everyone and deny service to anyone who
opposes those in power, they proved they are power-mad with the lockdowns etc and their idea is to have it much like in China with their sick social credit system. This is all a World Economic Forum(WEF) initiative, the WEF scumbags also want worldwide
vax passports! again so we can all be tracked and banned if we fall out of line. The WEF invented the "climate change" nonsense in the 60's it interesting history if you look it up. Did you know the "97% of scientists agree" stat comes from survey of 12,
000 frontpages of climate studies - 3000 said climate was influenced by man, 8500 had no conclusion, 500 said it was nothing to do with man, the rest didn't know - so they chucked the "no conclusion" ones out and said oh 97%! also CO2 is 0.04% of the
atmosphere and apparently we contribute 4% to that 0.04% LOL

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31.7.2023 19.09, The Iceberg wrote:

"The third and fourth reactors were originally supposed to cost $14 billion, but are now on track to cost their owners $31 billion. That doesn’t include $3.7 billion that original contractor Westinghouse paid to the owners to walk away from the

project. That brings total spending to almost $35 billion."

BARGAIN BASEMENT renewable energy!

You got it. For $35B you get 1.1MWh. Lol. (For reference, our latest NPP
that took about ten years to complete, cost ~ €6B. Double the initial projected cost. 1.6MWh capacity) No wonder Westinghouse was willing to
pay billions to pull out of the $35B project. Lolski!

If this is sawboob's version of green transition, I'll have to chuckle a
bit to myself. Excuse me ... HA HA HA HA HA HA.

Whatta relief.

A ballpark figure for producing a nominal continuous 1.1MWh with wind is
3x the nominal wattage in wind power, 3.3 MWh. The ratio might depend on
where you live. That 3.3MWh in wind is DIRT cheap compared to that $35B. Gleaning stuff from the net, you get roughly 20MWh in wind power with $35B.

Even if you attach gizmos to wind power that make the wattage
continuous, wind still is cheaper than nucular. Of course, one form of
backup energy is the grid and international electricity markets. It's
always windy somewhere.

When somebody offers a $35B snafu as an alternative to God knows what,
you gotta wonder what the fuck is going on. It's of course a truism to
say that nucular is here to stay for the foreseeable future. But that's
not saying much. My cat knows that.

--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 15:49:34 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 31.7.2023 19.09, The Iceberg wrote:

"The third and fourth reactors were originally supposed to cost $14 billion, but are now on track to cost their owners $31 billion. That doesn’t include $3.7 billion that original contractor Westinghouse paid to the owners to walk away from the

project. That brings total spending to almost $35 billion."

BARGAIN BASEMENT renewable energy!

You got it. For $35B you get 1.1MWh. Lol. (For reference, our latest NPP that took about ten years to complete, cost ~ €6B. Double the initial projected cost. 1.6MWh capacity) No wonder Westinghouse was willing to
pay billions to pull out of the $35B project. Lolski!

If this is sawboob's version of green transition, I'll have to chuckle a
bit to myself. Excuse me ... HA HA HA HA HA HA.

Whatta relief.

A ballpark figure for producing a nominal continuous 1.1MWh with wind is
3x the nominal wattage in wind power, 3.3 MWh. The ratio might depend on where you live. That 3.3MWh in wind is DIRT cheap compared to that $35B. Gleaning stuff from the net, you get roughly 20MWh in wind power with $35B.

Even if you attach gizmos to wind power that make the wattage
continuous, wind still is cheaper than nucular. Of course, one form of backup energy is the grid and international electricity markets. It's
always windy somewhere.

When somebody offers a $35B snafu as an alternative to God knows what,
you gotta wonder what the fuck is going on. It's of course a truism to
say that nucular is here to stay for the foreseeable future. But that's
not saying much. My cat knows that.

minor problems are wind isn't continuous and what are you comparing it with in the real world? as in practically what size of wind farm would you need to match a $35B nuke plant or is this just another "theory".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/first-us-nuclear-reactor-built-scratch-decades-enters-commercial-opera-rcna97258Can we expect more of these as IC cars and gas ranges are banned in the west?What are your thoughts on this? It is an

interesting topic.-- --Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Would someone please tell me what 'diddy-wah-diddy' means?"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am fully against mining 25k-40k lithium to put it in one car battery to charge from energy generated by other sources.
It's not even generating its own energy.
Until these batteries can be recycled to recover at least 80% of their effective materials, I think this whole trend is a big scam.
Also, I can't imagine future civilization being fully dependent on electric grid in its transportation of people and supplies.

When they were selling us LEDs bulbs they were initially telling us it will last 10 years and they were expensive and really lasted long. Now they aren't lasting 3-6 months.

But we are being forced into electric furnaces, stoves, cars, ...


--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:09:37 PM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:

On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 16:23:49 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/first-us-nuclear-reactor-built-scratch-decades-enters-commercial-opera-rcna97258

Can we expect more of these as IC cars and gas ranges are banned in the west?

What are your thoughts on this? It is an interesting topic.

"The third and fourth reactors were originally supposed to cost $14 billion, but are now on track to cost their owners $31 billion. That doesn’t include $3.7 billion that original contractor Westinghouse paid to the owners to walk away from the

project. That brings total spending to almost $35 billion."

BARGAIN BASEMENT renewable energy!

Wind and Solar are cheaper
WOKE POWER FOREVER ! ! !

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r> https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/first-us-nuclear-reactor-built-scratch-decades-enters-commercial-opera-rcna97258Can we expect more of these as IC cars and gas ranges are banned in the west?

What are your thoughts on this? It is an interesting topic.-- --Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Would someone please tell me what 'diddy-wah-diddy' means?"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I am fully against mining 25k-40k lithium to put it in one car battery to charge from energy generated by other sources. It's not even generating its own energy.Until these batteries can be recycled to recover at least
80% of their effective materials, I think this whole trend is a big scam.Also, I can't imagine future civilization being fully dependent on electric grid in its transportation of people and supplies.When they were selling us LEDs bulbs they were
initially telling us it will last 10 years and they were expensive and really lasted long. Now they aren't lasting 3-6 months.But we are being forced into electric furnaces, stoves, cars, ...-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader----https://piaohong.s3-us-west-
2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html





Everything trendy is always a scam and of course green electricity is such scam.

As you point out, y destroy mountains, hills, rocks, reservoirs to make "battery" so that cars could run on it. Wtf?

What about the destroyed nature and enormous battery waste afterwards?

How can any of if be considered "green".


Gas and oil are tens thousands times more eco friendly. And there is bio fuel, or we can wait for hydrogen cars and water as a byproduct.

Anyway we should totally ignore this battery madness.





In Serbia, during late 2021 there were huge protests against lithium mining and the destruction it would bring and also private ownership issues.




https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/serbians-are-protesting-against-lithium-mine-and-new-draft-laws-which-allegedly-benefit-business/



Then who joined it?


https://firstsportz.com/tennis-novak-djokovic-backs-the-growing-protests-in-serbia-over-the-rio-tinto-mining/

Novak Djokovic backs the growing protests in Serbia over the Rio Tinto mining

by Sarthak Shitole
December 5, 2021




https://thebridge.in/tennis/novak-djokovic-serbia-mining-protests-27172

Novak Djokovic takes stand for protesters in Serbia Serbia has been rocked by protests as anger swells over a government-backed plan to allow an Australian mining company to extract lithium in the country.





Australian mining company?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Tinto_(corporation)


Rio Tinto Group is an Anglo-Australian multinational company that is the world's second-largest metals and mining corporation (behind BHP).

It has joint head offices in London (global and "plc") and Melbourne ("Limited" – Australia).



So couple of weeks after Djokovic has led Serbs against Rio Tinto, he gets arrested in Australia over nothing and gets deported and expelled from AO.

I believe it's not only due to COVID hoax, but part of it was surely revenge from this Melbourne based international mining mafia over Djokovic interfering with their scam in Serbia.




--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 04:31:38 -0700 (PDT), The Iceberg
<iceberg.rules@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 20:14:18 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:

On 7/31/23 9:09 AM, The Iceberg wrote:

On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 16:23:49 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/first-us-nuclear-reactor-built-scratch-decades-enters-commercial-opera-rcna97258

Can we expect more of these as IC cars and gas ranges are banned in the >> >> west?

What are your thoughts on this? It is an interesting topic.

"The third and fourth reactors were originally supposed to cost $14 billion, but are now on track to cost their owners $31 billion. That doesn�t include $3.7 billion that original contractor Westinghouse paid to the owners to walk away from the

project. That brings total spending to almost $35 billion."

BARGAIN BASEMENT renewable energy!

Seriously, here's my point. Let's leave aside over-runs for now.

If everyone is supposed to:

1) drive electric cars

2) cook over electricity

3) likely heat with electricity

we're going to have to build out the grid and generate a lot more
electrical power. Formerly this had fallen to coal, then natural gas,
and some nuke, which has had bad press for quite a while.

There's also a handful of renewables, like wind, tide, hydro, all except
hydro are fairly intermittent and can be prone to breakdown. There was
once a lot of talk about geothermal, but I don't hear much about it
anymore. Solar works but it takes proper sun exposure and ACRES of land
that might otherwise by used in agriculture.

Many people are concerned about global warming and they want to stampede
to electricity as a short.intermediate term solution. But if climate
scientist are to believed, we're past any short term, or even
intermediate term solutions. If by magic and despotism we converted
instantly overnight from current carbon-based consumption to all
electric, nothing will change the fact that so far as significant
warming is concerned, it's a done deal. We would not see improvements
for 500 years or more.

BTW, this is why I think that adaptation is what leaders should make top
priority, and not short-term conversion to electricity.

Now all those people who blindly support the *idea* of rapid
conversion--they support the *idea*, but really don't know what it means
for them yet--many also support ecological preservation, dismantling of
hydro dams, etc. But hydro and wind are not really all that environment
friendly, nor are large-scale solar farms. If they want to make a fairly
quick and relatively painless conversion to electric power, nuclear
seems like the best answer.

So for these types of militant electrification wokesters, when it comes
to nuclear power, with minimal immediate environmental effect as
compared to hydro/wind/solar, and greenhouse gas free, it's time to fish
or cut bait. Do you really want electrification, low environmental
impact? If so, you'll need nuclear for probably 200 years.

Or you can block up salmon runs, disrupt migratory bird flyways, and
turn large areas of the flat ground into what amounts to 300 acre carports. >>
Or you can just shut the fuck up.

yes agree with all this, as you say if you want all electric cars/buses/ships/planes and re-charging points etc. going to need nuclear or to chop down lots of trees like in Scotland where they chopped down 4 MILLION trees to have some wind power!!

This nonsense has the stench of Watson's bollocks about it. I doubt
the 4 million figure but whatever the number, they weren't cut down to
make way for wind turbines. They were felled because they had been
grown as a cash crop and they had reached maturity. Forestry Scotland presumably found it more lucrative to lease the land for power
generation. Many people find the sight of acres of hillside covered in
an alien conifer monoculture just as ugly as wind farms.

course the wokesters just follow whatever the current thing is, so nuclear/tree-chopping is fine with them now.

And you parrot anything that Watson tells you.

Don't have big problem with pushing electric cars cos they are the future like Elon Musk says, but what is concerning is the politicians are clearly doing all this with the evil extra aim of being able to track everyone and deny service to anyone who

opposes those in power,

Just like Putler plans to do with those who refuse to be conscripted.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 20:34:31 UTC+1, bruce bowser wrote:

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:09:37 PM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:

On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 16:23:49 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/first-us-nuclear-reactor-built-scratch-decades-enters-commercial-opera-rcna97258

Can we expect more of these as IC cars and gas ranges are banned in the west?

What are your thoughts on this? It is an interesting topic.

"The third and fourth reactors were originally supposed to cost $14 billion, but are now on track to cost their owners $31 billion. That doesn’t include $3.7 billion that original contractor Westinghouse paid to the owners to walk away from the

project. That brings total spending to almost $35 billion."

BARGAIN BASEMENT renewable energy!

Wind and Solar are cheaper
WOKE POWER FOREVER ! ! !

they're not though, you woke maroon, need to destroy entire forests to put up your wind turbines that break every 10minutes!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 21:52:56 UTC+1, Custos Custodum wrote:

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 04:31:38 -0700 (PDT), The Iceberg
<iceber...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 20:14:18 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:

On 7/31/23 9:09 AM, The Iceberg wrote:

On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 16:23:49 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/first-us-nuclear-reactor-built-scratch-decades-enters-commercial-opera-rcna97258

Can we expect more of these as IC cars and gas ranges are banned in the
west?

What are your thoughts on this? It is an interesting topic.

"The third and fourth reactors were originally supposed to cost $14 billion, but are now on track to cost their owners $31 billion. That doesn’t include $3.7 billion that original contractor Westinghouse paid to the owners to walk away from the

project. That brings total spending to almost $35 billion."

BARGAIN BASEMENT renewable energy!

Seriously, here's my point. Let's leave aside over-runs for now.

If everyone is supposed to:

1) drive electric cars

2) cook over electricity

3) likely heat with electricity

we're going to have to build out the grid and generate a lot more
electrical power. Formerly this had fallen to coal, then natural gas,
and some nuke, which has had bad press for quite a while.

There's also a handful of renewables, like wind, tide, hydro, all except >> hydro are fairly intermittent and can be prone to breakdown. There was
once a lot of talk about geothermal, but I don't hear much about it
anymore. Solar works but it takes proper sun exposure and ACRES of land >> that might otherwise by used in agriculture.

Many people are concerned about global warming and they want to stampede >> to electricity as a short.intermediate term solution. But if climate
scientist are to believed, we're past any short term, or even
intermediate term solutions. If by magic and despotism we converted
instantly overnight from current carbon-based consumption to all
electric, nothing will change the fact that so far as significant
warming is concerned, it's a done deal. We would not see improvements
for 500 years or more.

BTW, this is why I think that adaptation is what leaders should make top >> priority, and not short-term conversion to electricity.

Now all those people who blindly support the *idea* of rapid
conversion--they support the *idea*, but really don't know what it means >> for them yet--many also support ecological preservation, dismantling of >> hydro dams, etc. But hydro and wind are not really all that environment >> friendly, nor are large-scale solar farms. If they want to make a fairly >> quick and relatively painless conversion to electric power, nuclear
seems like the best answer.

So for these types of militant electrification wokesters, when it comes >> to nuclear power, with minimal immediate environmental effect as
compared to hydro/wind/solar, and greenhouse gas free, it's time to fish >> or cut bait. Do you really want electrification, low environmental
impact? If so, you'll need nuclear for probably 200 years.

Or you can block up salmon runs, disrupt migratory bird flyways, and
turn large areas of the flat ground into what amounts to 300 acre carports.

Or you can just shut the fuck up.

yes agree with all this, as you say if you want all electric cars/buses/ships/planes and re-charging points etc. going to need nuclear or to chop down lots of trees like in Scotland where they chopped down 4 MILLION trees to have some wind power!!

This nonsense has the stench of Watson's bollocks about it. I doubt
the 4 million figure but whatever the number, they weren't cut down to
make way for wind turbines. They were felled because they had been
grown as a cash crop and they had reached maturity. Forestry Scotland presumably found it more lucrative to lease the land for power
generation. Many people find the sight of acres of hillside covered in
an alien conifer monoculture just as ugly as wind farms.

no they don't, you disgustingly woke liar, trees are light years better looking than hideous wind turbines, otherwise go and live by a wind farm and prove us wrong, of course you won't.
oh sorry it was SIXTEEN MILLION trees they've chopped down in Scotland to be "green" LOL
https://tvpworld.com/71419271/scotland-chops-down-almost-16-million-trees-to-make-way-for-wind-turbines

course the wokesters just follow whatever the current thing is, so nuclear/tree-chopping is fine with them now.

And you parrot anything that Watson tells you.

you're an unquestioning sheep, you've proved that many times.

Don't have big problem with pushing electric cars cos they are the future like Elon Musk says, but what is concerning is the politicians are clearly doing all this with the evil extra aim of being able to track everyone and deny service to anyone who

opposes those in power,

Just like Putler plans to do with those who refuse to be conscripted.

that generally happens to people who refuse to be conscripted, what's amazing is how you offer zero resistance to anything, at all, even being tracked 24/7 by the government for no reason at all, amazing compliance your Marxist religion.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 14:59:53 -0700 (PDT), The Iceberg
<iceberg.rules@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 21:52:56 UTC+1, Custos Custodum wrote:

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 04:31:38 -0700 (PDT), The Iceberg
<iceber...@gmail.com> wrote:

yes agree with all this, as you say if you want all electric cars/buses/ships/planes and re-charging points etc. going to need nuclear or to chop down lots of trees like in Scotland where they chopped down 4 MILLION trees to have some wind power!!

This nonsense has the stench of Watson's bollocks about it. I doubt
the 4 million figure but whatever the number, they weren't cut down to
make way for wind turbines. They were felled because they had been
grown as a cash crop and they had reached maturity. Forestry Scotland
presumably found it more lucrative to lease the land for power
generation. Many people find the sight of acres of hillside covered in
an alien conifer monoculture just as ugly as wind farms.

no they don't, you disgustingly woke liar, trees are light years better looking than hideous wind turbines, otherwise go and live by a wind farm and prove us wrong, of course you won't.

I don't need to. I can see plenty of both within a short distance of
here. Unlike you in your London hovel. (BTW, there's a huge aesthetic difference between "trees" and forestry plantations.)

oh sorry it was SIXTEEN MILLION trees they've chopped down in Scotland to be "green" LOL
https://tvpworld.com/71419271/scotland-chops-down-almost-16-million-trees-to-make-way-for-wind-turbines

"The agency Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) responded to criticism by
saying it had planted more than 500 million trees since 2000 and that
the quantity felled for wind farms equated roughly to its annual
harvesting program."

In other words, they had been planted as a cash crop and were going to
be cut down anyway.

course the wokesters just follow whatever the current thing is, so nuclear/tree-chopping is fine with them now.

And you parrot anything that Watson tells you.

you're an unquestioning sheep,

I question the nonsense you post, when I can be arsed.

you've proved that many times.

Some examples might help your case, but I'm not holding my breath.

Don't have big problem with pushing electric cars cos they are the future like Elon Musk says, but what is concerning is the politicians are clearly doing all this with the evil extra aim of being able to track everyone and deny service to anyone who

opposes those in power,

Just like Putler plans to do with those who refuse to be conscripted.

that generally happens to people who refuse to be conscripted, what's amazing is how you offer zero resistance to anything, at all, even being tracked 24/7 by the government for no reason at all, amazing compliance your Marxist religion.

What is amazing is the way you can fabricate imaginary scenarios out
of absolutely zero evidence. Is there any conspiracy theory that
you're not too gullible to swallow?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Maybe climate is changing because us, or just changing because our earth loves to cycle these things.

But we can surely either accelerate or prevent things at local level.

Local example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink

.mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 02 Aug 2023 00:18:51 +0100, Custos Custodum <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 14:59:53 -0700 (PDT), The Iceberg ><iceberg.rules@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 21:52:56 UTC+1, Custos Custodum wrote:

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 04:31:38 -0700 (PDT), The Iceberg
<iceber...@gmail.com> wrote:

yes agree with all this, as you say if you want all electric cars/buses/ships/planes and re-charging points etc. going to need nuclear or to chop down lots of trees like in Scotland where they chopped down 4 MILLION trees to have some wind power!!

This nonsense has the stench of Watson's bollocks about it. I doubt
the 4 million figure but whatever the number, they weren't cut down to
make way for wind turbines. They were felled because they had been
grown as a cash crop and they had reached maturity. Forestry Scotland
presumably found it more lucrative to lease the land for power
generation. Many people find the sight of acres of hillside covered in
an alien conifer monoculture just as ugly as wind farms.

no they don't, you disgustingly woke liar, trees are light years better looking than hideous wind turbines, otherwise go and live by a wind farm and prove us wrong, of course you won't.

I don't need to. I can see plenty of both within a short distance of
here. Unlike you in your London hovel. (BTW, there's a huge aesthetic >difference between "trees" and forestry plantations.)

oh sorry it was SIXTEEN MILLION trees they've chopped down in Scotland to be "green" LOL
https://tvpworld.com/71419271/scotland-chops-down-almost-16-million-trees-to-make-way-for-wind-turbines

"The agency Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) responded to criticism by
saying it had planted more than 500 million trees since 2000 and that
the quantity felled for wind farms equated roughly to its annual
harvesting program."

In other words, they had been planted as a cash crop and were going to
be cut down anyway.

course the wokesters just follow whatever the current thing is, so nuclear/tree-chopping is fine with them now.

And you parrot anything that Watson tells you.

you're an unquestioning sheep,

I question the nonsense you post, when I can be arsed.

you've proved that many times.

Some examples might help your case, but I'm not holding my breath.

Don't have big problem with pushing electric cars cos they are the future like Elon Musk says, but what is concerning is the politicians are clearly doing all this with the evil extra aim of being able to track everyone and deny service to anyone

who opposes those in power,

Just like Putler plans to do with those who refuse to be conscripted.

that generally happens to people who refuse to be conscripted, what's amazing is how you offer zero resistance to anything, at all, even being tracked 24/7 by the government for no reason at all, amazing compliance your Marxist religion.

What is amazing is the way you can fabricate imaginary scenarios out
of absolutely zero evidence. Is there any conspiracy theory that
you're not too gullible to swallow?

<cough> "not gullible enough"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/2/23 2:08 AM, MBDunc wrote:

Maybe climate is changing because us, or just changing because our earth loves to cycle these things.

They are *both* happening, mikko. It's important for people to
understand that it's not an either/or.

So far as I'm concerned, it's a done deal. The question is: what are you (collectively) going to do about it to get by?

But we can surely either accelerate or prevent things at local level.

Local example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink

I don't see this as a parallel to atmospheric warming/cooling. It's much
more *physically* localized.

.mikko

--
"It is Pointless, and endless Trouble, to cast a stone at every dog
that barks at you."

--Sawfish

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2.8.2023 18.27, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 2:08 AM, MBDunc wrote:

Maybe climate is changing because us, or just changing because our
earth loves to cycle these things.

They are *both* happening, mikko. It's important for people to
understand that it's not an either/or.

As far as the present warming is concerned, the orbital cycles have been
ruled out. During the past 40 years, these cycles in fact have cooled
the Earth.

There is much more to know about stuffs than knowing it's not either or,
saw.

--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2.8.2023 12.08, MBDunc wrote:

Maybe climate is changing because us, or just changing because our earth loves to cycle these things.

But we can surely either accelerate or prevent things at local level.

Local example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/28/at-last-the-tories-prove-that-brexit-has-polluted-the-uk

--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:10:24 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 2.8.2023 18.27, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 2:08 AM, MBDunc wrote:

Maybe climate is changing because us, or just changing because our
earth loves to cycle these things.

They are *both* happening, mikko. It's important for people to
understand that it's not an either/or.

As far as the present warming is concerned, the orbital cycles have been ruled out. During the past 40 years, these cycles in fact have cooled
the Earth.

There is much more to know about stuffs than knowing it's not either or, saw.

The spiritual tenet that "there's always a way" applies here, I'd say. We have been presented with a tough situation, so now let's find a solution.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/2/23 9:25 AM, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:10:24 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 2.8.2023 18.27, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 2:08 AM, MBDunc wrote:

Maybe climate is changing because us, or just changing because our
earth loves to cycle these things.

They are *both* happening, mikko. It's important for people to
understand that it's not an either/or.

As far as the present warming is concerned, the orbital cycles have been
ruled out. During the past 40 years, these cycles in fact have cooled
the Earth.

There is much more to know about stuffs than knowing it's not either or,
saw.

The spiritual tenet that "there's always a way" applies here, I'd say. We have been presented with a tough situation, so now let's find a solution.

Let me ask in all honesty, and a direct reply is not needed, so I guess
this is a rhetorical proposition...

What solution(s) have you heard so far?

Of these, which are not mutually exclusive?

Of what's left, have you heard a satisfactory solution that sounds to
you like, given your life's experience, has a significant chance of a)
being adopted as stated; and b) is very likely to yield the desired results?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"He who talks the talk must also walk the walk."

--Sawfish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:37:39 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 9:25 AM, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:10:24 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 2.8.2023 18.27, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 2:08 AM, MBDunc wrote:

Maybe climate is changing because us, or just changing because our
earth loves to cycle these things.

They are *both* happening, mikko. It's important for people to
understand that it's not an either/or.

As far as the present warming is concerned, the orbital cycles have been >> ruled out. During the past 40 years, these cycles in fact have cooled
the Earth.

There is much more to know about stuffs than knowing it's not either or, >> saw.

The spiritual tenet that "there's always a way" applies here, I'd say. We have been presented with a tough situation, so now let's find a solution.

Let me ask in all honesty, and a direct reply is not needed, so I guess
this is a rhetorical proposition...

What solution(s) have you heard so far?

Of these, which are not mutually exclusive?

Of what's left, have you heard a satisfactory solution that sounds to
you like, given your life's experience, has a significant chance of a)
being adopted as stated; and b) is very likely to yield the desired results?

Well, Saw, first we need to agree that there's a problem. Then, we can argue about whether it was caused by man or not, but more importantly, let's, once we agree there's a problem, what next?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 7:37:39 PM UTC+3, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 9:25 AM, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:10:24 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 2.8.2023 18.27, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 2:08 AM, MBDunc wrote:

Maybe climate is changing because us, or just changing because our
earth loves to cycle these things.

They are *both* happening, mikko. It's important for people to
understand that it's not an either/or.

As far as the present warming is concerned, the orbital cycles have been >> ruled out. During the past 40 years, these cycles in fact have cooled
the Earth.

There is much more to know about stuffs than knowing it's not either or, >> saw.

The spiritual tenet that "there's always a way" applies here, I'd say. We have been presented with a tough situation, so now let's find a solution.

Let me ask in all honesty, and a direct reply is not needed, so I guess
this is a rhetorical proposition...

What solution(s) have you heard so far?

Science will allow for a solution, not tinhats. That is something sure bet.... But this science has to be properly funded....

Of these, which are not mutually exclusive?

Of what's left, have you heard a satisfactory solution that sounds to
you like, given your life's experience, has a significant chance of a)
being adopted as stated; and b) is very likely to yield the desired results?

My personal carbon footprint has been very low compared to "others in my position/life-state". Like I have not had a car for .... 17 years....

I trust science, you should also. Science have made some sure death diseases trivial, science has made possible things not seen in "future predictions 50y ago"....

Too bad science has no room for this "warming effect" as long as there are too much denialism?

It is not for me, but future generations.....

.mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:58:42 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 9:42 AM, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:37:39 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 9:25 AM, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:10:24 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 2.8.2023 18.27, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 2:08 AM, MBDunc wrote:

Maybe climate is changing because us, or just changing because our >>>>>> earth loves to cycle these things.

They are *both* happening, mikko. It's important for people to
understand that it's not an either/or.

As far as the present warming is concerned, the orbital cycles have been
ruled out. During the past 40 years, these cycles in fact have cooled >>>> the Earth.

There is much more to know about stuffs than knowing it's not either or,
saw.

The spiritual tenet that "there's always a way" applies here, I'd say. We have been presented with a tough situation, so now let's find a solution.

Let me ask in all honesty, and a direct reply is not needed, so I guess >> this is a rhetorical proposition...

What solution(s) have you heard so far?

Of these, which are not mutually exclusive?

Of what's left, have you heard a satisfactory solution that sounds to
you like, given your life's experience, has a significant chance of a)
being adopted as stated; and b) is very likely to yield the desired results?

Well, Saw, first we need to agree that there's a problem.

There's a change, and I think it's a problem of unknown magnitude, but probably very significant.

According to many others, that it is the End of Days is a certainty.

It may be, but it's incompletely demonstrated, so far as I'm concerned.

Then, we can argue about whether it was caused by man or not,

Part of it is human caused. Conceivably this could be controlled, but in
a real world sense, is very, very unlikely to be controlled.

but more importantly, let's, once we agree there's a problem, what next?

Assuming the projected timeframes of persistence (I've been using 500
years, but that's on the brief end of what I've read) I think first
priority is to adapt to get past the projected warming cycle, and secondarily to gradually reduce energy consumption, global population,
or both.

Boy, oh boy. I'm glad this one's not on my plate.

But wow, I've let you off lightly, b!

Yes, you have, but I didn't want to start the discussion until I was sure you admitted that there is a problem.

What about your thoughts on my questions? Have you yet heard any
solutions, as I stated? Sounds like not, like we're not even close to figuring out what's going on.

Is this how you see it?

Yes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/2/23 9:42 AM, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:37:39 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 9:25 AM, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:10:24 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote: >>>> On 2.8.2023 18.27, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 2:08 AM, MBDunc wrote:

Maybe climate is changing because us, or just changing because our >>>>>> earth loves to cycle these things.

They are *both* happening, mikko. It's important for people to
understand that it's not an either/or.

As far as the present warming is concerned, the orbital cycles have been >>>> ruled out. During the past 40 years, these cycles in fact have cooled
the Earth.

There is much more to know about stuffs than knowing it's not either or, >>>> saw.

The spiritual tenet that "there's always a way" applies here, I'd say. We have been presented with a tough situation, so now let's find a solution.

Let me ask in all honesty, and a direct reply is not needed, so I guess
this is a rhetorical proposition...

What solution(s) have you heard so far?

Of these, which are not mutually exclusive?

Of what's left, have you heard a satisfactory solution that sounds to
you like, given your life's experience, has a significant chance of a)
being adopted as stated; and b) is very likely to yield the desired results?

Well, Saw, first we need to agree that there's a problem.

There's a change, and I think it's a problem of unknown magnitude, but
probably very significant.

According to many others, that it is the End of Days is a certainty.

It may be, but it's incompletely demonstrated, so far as I'm concerned.

Then, we can argue about whether it was caused by man or not,

Part of it is human caused. Conceivably this could be controlled, but in
a real world sense, is very, very unlikely to be controlled.

but more importantly, let's, once we agree there's a problem, what next?

Assuming the projected timeframes of persistence (I've been using 500
years, but that's on the brief end of what I've read) I think first
priority is to adapt to get past the projected warming cycle, and
secondarily to gradually reduce energy consumption, global population,
or both.

Boy, oh boy. I'm glad this one's not on my plate.

But wow, I've let you off lightly, b!

What about your thoughts on my questions? Have you yet heard any
solutions, as I stated? Sounds like not, like we're not even close to
figuring out what's going on.

Is this how you see it?


--
--Sawfish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The Ayatolla of Rock and Rolla!" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2.8.2023 19.25, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:10:24 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 2.8.2023 18.27, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 2:08 AM, MBDunc wrote:

Maybe climate is changing because us, or just changing because our
earth loves to cycle these things.

They are *both* happening, mikko. It's important for people to
understand that it's not an either/or.

As far as the present warming is concerned, the orbital cycles have been
ruled out. During the past 40 years, these cycles in fact have cooled
the Earth.

There is much more to know about stuffs than knowing it's not either or,
saw.

The spiritual tenet that "there's always a way" applies here, I'd say. We have been presented with a tough situation, so now let's find a solution.

There is no "a" or "the" solution. What we know is that reducing
emissions ameliorate the problem. Where that takes us, we don't really
know. But that's what we are in fact already doing. On a whole host of
fronts. There's a million "solutions", yet there is none. If you know
what I mean.

There's quite a few ifs and buts around. The future anti-everything
generations have their whimpering cut out for them.

--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 10:18:56 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 2.8.2023 19.25, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:10:24 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 2.8.2023 18.27, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 2:08 AM, MBDunc wrote:

Maybe climate is changing because us, or just changing because our
earth loves to cycle these things.

They are *both* happening, mikko. It's important for people to
understand that it's not an either/or.

As far as the present warming is concerned, the orbital cycles have been >> ruled out. During the past 40 years, these cycles in fact have cooled
the Earth.

There is much more to know about stuffs than knowing it's not either or, >> saw.

The spiritual tenet that "there's always a way" applies here, I'd say. We have been presented with a tough situation, so now let's find a solution.

There is no "a" or "the" solution.

Isn't that just semantics? Let's fix this, if not in 10 years, then 100.

What we know is that reducing
emissions ameliorate the problem. Where that takes us, we don't really
know. But that's what we are in fact already doing. On a whole host of fronts.

Agreed. We hope.

There's a million "solutions", yet there is none. If you know
what I mean.

Yeah, nothing ever seems to move forward. If that's what you mean.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/2/23 9:47 AM, MBDunc wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 7:37:39 PM UTC+3, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 9:25 AM, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:10:24 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote: >>>> On 2.8.2023 18.27, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 2:08 AM, MBDunc wrote:

Maybe climate is changing because us, or just changing because our >>>>>> earth loves to cycle these things.

They are *both* happening, mikko. It's important for people to
understand that it's not an either/or.

As far as the present warming is concerned, the orbital cycles have been >>>> ruled out. During the past 40 years, these cycles in fact have cooled
the Earth.

There is much more to know about stuffs than knowing it's not either or, >>>> saw.

The spiritual tenet that "there's always a way" applies here, I'd say. We have been presented with a tough situation, so now let's find a solution.

Let me ask in all honesty, and a direct reply is not needed, so I guess
this is a rhetorical proposition...

What solution(s) have you heard so far?

Science will allow for a solution, not tinhats. That is something sure bet....
But this science has to be properly funded....

Of these, which are not mutually exclusive?

Of what's left, have you heard a satisfactory solution that sounds to
you like, given your life's experience, has a significant chance of a)
being adopted as stated; and b) is very likely to yield the desired results?

My personal carbon footprint has been very low compared to "others in my position/life-state". Like I have not had a car for .... 17 years....

I trust science, you should also. Science have made some sure death diseases trivial, science has made possible things not seen in "future predictions 50y ago"....

Too bad science has no room for this "warming effect" as long as there are too much denialism?

It is not for me, but future generations.....

.mikko

Good discussion, mikko.

--
--Sawfish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The Ayatolla of Rock and Rolla!" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2.8.2023 20.41, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 10:18:56 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 2.8.2023 19.25, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:10:24 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote: >>>> On 2.8.2023 18.27, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 2:08 AM, MBDunc wrote:

Maybe climate is changing because us, or just changing because our >>>>>> earth loves to cycle these things.

They are *both* happening, mikko. It's important for people to
understand that it's not an either/or.

As far as the present warming is concerned, the orbital cycles have been >>>> ruled out. During the past 40 years, these cycles in fact have cooled
the Earth.

There is much more to know about stuffs than knowing it's not either or, >>>> saw.

The spiritual tenet that "there's always a way" applies here, I'd say. We have been presented with a tough situation, so now let's find a solution.

There is no "a" or "the" solution.

Isn't that just semantics? Let's fix this, if not in 10 years, then 100.

It's a big ship. We give it jolts and hope it changes course. But
nothing is certain. We have scenarios and probabilities in front of us.

What we know is that reducing
emissions ameliorate the problem. Where that takes us, we don't really
know. But that's what we are in fact already doing. On a whole host of
fronts.

Agreed. We hope.

There's a million "solutions", yet there is none. If you know
what I mean.

Yeah, nothing ever seems to move forward. If that's what you mean.

What I mean is that there is no switch that will wake you up from a
dream. But there are a million things that on their own don't qualify as "solutions", but jolt the ship.

What these millions of things might be, check out some of the official
target documents where you live.

--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:00:28 PM UTC+3, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 9:47 AM, MBDunc wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 7:37:39 PM UTC+3, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 9:25 AM, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:10:24 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 2.8.2023 18.27, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 2:08 AM, MBDunc wrote:

Maybe climate is changing because us, or just changing because our >>>>>> earth loves to cycle these things.

They are *both* happening, mikko. It's important for people to
understand that it's not an either/or.

As far as the present warming is concerned, the orbital cycles have been
ruled out. During the past 40 years, these cycles in fact have cooled >>>> the Earth.

There is much more to know about stuffs than knowing it's not either or,
saw.

The spiritual tenet that "there's always a way" applies here, I'd say. We have been presented with a tough situation, so now let's find a solution.

Let me ask in all honesty, and a direct reply is not needed, so I guess >> this is a rhetorical proposition...

What solution(s) have you heard so far?

Science will allow for a solution, not tinhats. That is something sure bet....
But this science has to be properly funded....

Of these, which are not mutually exclusive?

Of what's left, have you heard a satisfactory solution that sounds to
you like, given your life's experience, has a significant chance of a)
being adopted as stated; and b) is very likely to yield the desired results?

My personal carbon footprint has been very low compared to "others in my position/life-state". Like I have not had a car for .... 17 years....

I trust science, you should also. Science have made some sure death diseases trivial, science has made possible things not seen in "future predictions 50y ago"....

Too bad science has no room for this "warming effect" as long as there are too much denialism?

It is not for me, but future generations.....

.mikko

Good discussion, mikko.

Thanks,, I read superb sci-fi cartoon from 80:ies? Which plot had this "humans in universe are only species who think about future generations also"

.mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/2/23 10:07 AM, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:58:42 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 9:42 AM, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:37:39 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 9:25 AM, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:10:24 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 2.8.2023 18.27, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 2:08 AM, MBDunc wrote:

Maybe climate is changing because us, or just changing because our >>>>>>>> earth loves to cycle these things.

They are *both* happening, mikko. It's important for people to
understand that it's not an either/or.

As far as the present warming is concerned, the orbital cycles have been >>>>>> ruled out. During the past 40 years, these cycles in fact have cooled >>>>>> the Earth.

There is much more to know about stuffs than knowing it's not either or, >>>>>> saw.

The spiritual tenet that "there's always a way" applies here, I'd say. We have been presented with a tough situation, so now let's find a solution.

Let me ask in all honesty, and a direct reply is not needed, so I guess >>>> this is a rhetorical proposition...

What solution(s) have you heard so far?

Of these, which are not mutually exclusive?

Of what's left, have you heard a satisfactory solution that sounds to
you like, given your life's experience, has a significant chance of a) >>>> being adopted as stated; and b) is very likely to yield the desired results?

Well, Saw, first we need to agree that there's a problem.

There's a change, and I think it's a problem of unknown magnitude, but
probably very significant.

According to many others, that it is the End of Days is a certainty.

It may be, but it's incompletely demonstrated, so far as I'm concerned.

Then, we can argue about whether it was caused by man or not,

Part of it is human caused. Conceivably this could be controlled, but in
a real world sense, is very, very unlikely to be controlled.

but more importantly, let's, once we agree there's a problem, what next?

Assuming the projected timeframes of persistence (I've been using 500
years, but that's on the brief end of what I've read) I think first
priority is to adapt to get past the projected warming cycle, and
secondarily to gradually reduce energy consumption, global population,
or both.

Boy, oh boy. I'm glad this one's not on my plate.

But wow, I've let you off lightly, b!

Yes, you have, but I didn't want to start the discussion until I was sure you admitted that there is a problem.

Yes, there is a change. To me it could be a very serious problem, but I
really do hate seeing people so quick to equate "change" to "problem",
and what's worse, not just "problem", "existential problem", without
more exploration.

I mean, we're still about at the blind men feeling an elephant stage, so
far as full characterization.

Here's a good example, b. Seriously...

Recently reported that the Gulf Stream, as part of the larger oceanic circulation system, may collapse within two years.

OK, fine. What does that mean?

I think that the intent of the article was to convey to people that this
would mean global warming, and more of it. What's maybe even worse is
that the reporter actually thought that it means more global warming,
too. But reading more about it, I think it means a *much* colder Europe.
So how does that fit into the general popular understanding of global
warming?

Here's the irony, too: this collapse of the oceanic circulation is a
*result* of global warming, not a cause of global warming.

If this is accurate, we'll have a MUCH different climate regimen than is
being popularly touted.  I mean we could scare people into changing
energy sources who are far more likely to die from freezing than from overheating.

See? we're still grappling with the elephant...

What about your thoughts on my questions? Have you yet heard any
solutions, as I stated? Sounds like not, like we're not even close to
figuring out what's going on.

Is this how you see it?

Yes.

Fair enough.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Doncha know,
That it's a shame and a pity
You were raised
Up in the city
And you never learned nothin'
'bout country ways."


--Not So Sweet Martha Lorraine ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 11:29:58 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 2.8.2023 20.41, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 10:18:56 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 2.8.2023 19.25, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:10:24 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 2.8.2023 18.27, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 2:08 AM, MBDunc wrote:

Maybe climate is changing because us, or just changing because our >>>>>> earth loves to cycle these things.

They are *both* happening, mikko. It's important for people to
understand that it's not an either/or.

As far as the present warming is concerned, the orbital cycles have been
ruled out. During the past 40 years, these cycles in fact have cooled >>>> the Earth.

There is much more to know about stuffs than knowing it's not either or,
saw.

The spiritual tenet that "there's always a way" applies here, I'd say. We have been presented with a tough situation, so now let's find a solution.

There is no "a" or "the" solution.

Isn't that just semantics? Let's fix this, if not in 10 years, then 100.

It's a big ship. We give it jolts and hope it changes course. But
nothing is certain. We have scenarios and probabilities in front of us.

What we know is that reducing
emissions ameliorate the problem. Where that takes us, we don't really
know. But that's what we are in fact already doing. On a whole host of
fronts.

Agreed. We hope.

There's a million "solutions", yet there is none. If you know
what I mean.

Yeah, nothing ever seems to move forward. If that's what you mean.

What I mean is that there is no switch that will wake you up from a
dream. But there are a million things that on their own don't qualify as "solutions", but jolt the ship.

Yes. It's usually a gradual thing. I get what you're saying.

What these millions of things might be, check out some of the official target documents where you live.

Got it all up here :-)

Unless you have local links :-)

Sinead's second album is the best IMO.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/2/23 11:46 AM, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 11:29:58 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 2.8.2023 20.41, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 10:18:56 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote: >>>> On 2.8.2023 19.25, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:10:24 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 2.8.2023 18.27, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 2:08 AM, MBDunc wrote:

Maybe climate is changing because us, or just changing because our >>>>>>>> earth loves to cycle these things.

They are *both* happening, mikko. It's important for people to
understand that it's not an either/or.

As far as the present warming is concerned, the orbital cycles have been >>>>>> ruled out. During the past 40 years, these cycles in fact have cooled >>>>>> the Earth.

There is much more to know about stuffs than knowing it's not either or, >>>>>> saw.

The spiritual tenet that "there's always a way" applies here, I'd say. We have been presented with a tough situation, so now let's find a solution.

There is no "a" or "the" solution.

Isn't that just semantics? Let's fix this, if not in 10 years, then 100. >>>

It's a big ship. We give it jolts and hope it changes course. But
nothing is certain. We have scenarios and probabilities in front of us.

What we know is that reducing
emissions ameliorate the problem. Where that takes us, we don't really >>>> know. But that's what we are in fact already doing. On a whole host of >>>> fronts.

Agreed. We hope.

There's a million "solutions", yet there is none. If you know
what I mean.

Yeah, nothing ever seems to move forward. If that's what you mean.

What I mean is that there is no switch that will wake you up from a
dream. But there are a million things that on their own don't qualify as
"solutions", but jolt the ship.

Yes. It's usually a gradual thing. I get what you're saying.

Interesting...

I'd see those "million things" as the process of random market
evolution. Nothing strategic, such as what a "solution" supplies, which
for a complex problem is a consistent policy approach rather than
specific answers.

It's similar to the way LED lighting has been implemented in the US. For
a while, when they came on the market, they were too expensive. The
light quality was--and still is, to my eye--inferior to incandescents or
other sources like halogen.

But they were cheaper to run, especially in commercial applications, and
they lasted a long time.

Then the price came down and the light quality improved. They *evolved*
to a larger market share, with no visible strategic policy. Soon CFLs
were almost non-existent, and incandescents became harder to find. And
the quality of the incandescents dropped.

Finally overt strategic policy stepped in: after a certain date, you
could no longer buy most--maybe all--incandescents. And now the LEDs are
less robust than during the evolutionary phase, and the light quality,
while better than most CFLs, still leaves a lot to be desired.

But we're stuck due to the external, non-evolutionary policy solution.
And that's OK, but there's no point in

So the "million things" is how they evolved, and the policy--essentially
a partial solution to energy reduction--was the banning of sales of incandescent lights.

So for cars in the US, e-cars are advancing mostly by evolution, also
propped up by tax credits (policy), and in some states a future ban on
the sale of new IC cars.

So given all the people that recognize climate change, and prioritize it
over convenience and possibly expense, we could evolve to majority
electric. And that portion would grow as a) prices came down, and b)
recharging issues are overcome.

Or you could forcefeed it to everyone because you're *sure* (or you
think that most voters are sure) that this will go along way to solving
the perceived problem. If it doesn't work, or isn't needed, no skin off
your nose, Gavin Newsome. By then you could be president.

:^)

What these millions of things might be, check out some of the official
target documents where you live.

Got it all up here :-)

Unless you have local links :-)

Sinead's second album is the best IMO.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Goodness could be found sometimes in the middle of hell."

--Charles Bukowski ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/2/23 11:46 AM, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 11:29:58 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 2.8.2023 20.41, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 10:18:56 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote: >>>> On 2.8.2023 19.25, bmoore wrote:

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 9:10:24 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 2.8.2023 18.27, Sawfish wrote:

On 8/2/23 2:08 AM, MBDunc wrote:

Maybe climate is changing because us, or just changing because our >>>>>>>> earth loves to cycle these things.

They are *both* happening, mikko. It's important for people to
understand that it's not an either/or.

As far as the present warming is concerned, the orbital cycles have been >>>>>> ruled out. During the past 40 years, these cycles in fact have cooled >>>>>> the Earth.

There is much more to know about stuffs than knowing it's not either or, >>>>>> saw.

The spiritual tenet that "there's always a way" applies here, I'd say. We have been presented with a tough situation, so now let's find a solution.

There is no "a" or "the" solution.

Isn't that just semantics? Let's fix this, if not in 10 years, then 100. >>>

It's a big ship. We give it jolts and hope it changes course. But
nothing is certain. We have scenarios and probabilities in front of us.

What we know is that reducing
emissions ameliorate the problem. Where that takes us, we don't really >>>> know. But that's what we are in fact already doing. On a whole host of >>>> fronts.

Agreed. We hope.

There's a million "solutions", yet there is none. If you know
what I mean.

Yeah, nothing ever seems to move forward. If that's what you mean.

What I mean is that there is no switch that will wake you up from a
dream. But there are a million things that on their own don't qualify as
"solutions", but jolt the ship.

Yes. It's usually a gradual thing. I get what you're saying.

What these millions of things might be, check out some of the official
target documents where you live.

Got it all up here :-)

Unless you have local links :-)

Sinead's second album is the best IMO.

I think that this is a decent link to the high level mechanisms at work currently.

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/

Especially important to consider, when deciding policy priorities is this:

"If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of
years for atmospheric CO2 to return to “pre-industrial” levels due to
its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean sediments. Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a
thousand years, implying a long-term commitment to a warmer planet due
to past and current emissions. Sea level would likely continue to rise
for many centuries even after temperature stopped increasing [Figure 9]. Significant cooling would be required to reverse melting of glaciers and
the Greenland ice sheet, which formed during past cold climates.

*The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially
irreversible on human timescales.*

The amount and rate of further warming will depend almost entirely on
how much more CO2 humankind emits."

To me, this is about as clear a statement that you need to grab your
asses and be prepared for a rough ride for--what is it?--"... for at
least a thousand years."

So what you've got to do is figure a way to hang on for *at least* 1000
years and during that phase lower emissions as best you can as a
secondary goal. The problem that ideologues have right now is that it's possible to imagine that rapidly reducing emissions will do something
positive, but in truth, that "something positive" would not be seen for
1000 years. And what's really needed in the interim is a way to survive
as well as possible for at least 1000 years, because while I don't bet,
in a hypothetical situation I'd bet that we won't see any net reduction
from, say 2010 levels, for at least 50 years--if then. But unlike the
program to reduce carbon consumption, which will work, but not for you,
your kids, your grandkids, their grandkids, ad naseam, there is NO
suggested solution to mitigate the problems of living thru that 1000+
years. *That's* where the work needs to be done, but since no one has
anything to sell at this point, we hear nothing of it.

Do you see where I'm coming from, b, and why?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don’t have to waste your time voting."

--Charles Bukowski ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

“We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective.” – Kurt Vonnegut

.mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2.8.2023 23.46, Sawfish wrote:

The problem that ideologues have right now is that it's
possible to imagine that rapidly reducing emissions will do something positive, but in truth, that "something positive" would not be seen for
1000 years.

Er, ...

--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Sawfish kirjoitti 31.7.2023 klo 18.23:

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/first-us-nuclear-reactor-built-scratch-decades-enters-commercial-opera-rcna97258

Can we expect more of these as IC cars and gas ranges are banned in the
west?

What are your thoughts on this? It is an interesting topic.

This is good. Nuclear really is the only way to "green transition".
Then again it has some serious risks as well.

The problem is that greens/governments are closing coal facilities
before they get reliable energy sources, you can reduce CO2 with wind
and solar but they can't be basis for energy production.

Also a problem is waste of incredible amounts of money to BS such as
"green hydrogen" and cutting down farming etc. There is not a single
thing which green in Finland have done that is intelligent and not
harmful to economy, society, people and often even nature.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)