"Monumental, Unsustainable Environmental Impacts"

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy would inflict major land, wildlife, resource damage

but that does not matter to the alarmists


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/05/monumental-unsustainable-environmental-impacts/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,076]

>https://wattsupwiththat.com

Thanks for the laugh!

[JerryBaumchen 1,444]

Hi Bill,

  Quote

Thanks for the laugh!

Yup!!!!

Here is one automaker doing what they can:

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/volvo-going-all-electric-first-automaker-ditch-combustion-engine-n779791

'Volvo Is First Automaker to Offer Electric or Hybrid Only'

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 3,076]

>Here is one automaker doing what they can:

But what if one of those hybrid Volvos hits an eagle that has landed to eat a rabbit? ENVIRONMENTALISTS HATE EAGLES!

[rushmc 23]

  billvon

>https://wattsupwiththat.com

Thanks for the laugh!

A tactic for those who can not refute the content.

Typical......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

I do not post for you and the other warmnutists.

I post for the others who read and learn.
From the links themselves and from the actions of those like you.

Very informative.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,106]

  rushmc

***>https://wattsupwiththat.com

Thanks for the laugh!

A tactic for those who can not refute the content.

Typical......

Wattsup is a zero-credibility source. Its content does not require rebuttal.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wan2doit 6]

https://wattsupwiththat.com

Me helping the moderator - HaHa - What the heck, dz taught me how to liven a link - so payin' forward.

[wan2doit 6]

I seem to remember back in the 80's or there about that was going to run slap out of oil and the world would end as we knew it at that time -well it ain't happened yet and we seem to have a glut of oil currently.

Now, conveniently a generation later another big problem is here that government has to cure??? Not sayin' it isn't getting hotter - I live in Fl and it is getting hotter and has been for years.

Just sayin' the only consistent results of these "big problem" scenarios seems to be certain folks lining their pockets with cash generated by "big problem" cows and loss of many freedoms for many due to people being scared into giving government more power over their lives - BIG Mistake IMHO.

[DJL 235]

  rushmc

  Quote

Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy would inflict major land, wildlife, resource damage

but that does not matter to the alarmists


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/05/monumental-unsustainable-environmental-impacts/

Not clicking that garbage but it is true that many renewable projects can have a serious environmental impact. You have to fit the project to the site. When I was up in NE a group was trying to put windmills on the mountaintops until they revealed that they would have to entirely denude the tops of the mountains.

Materials are another issue, as is production but that typically equates to the environmental impact of materials and production for a coal plant so it can be considered sunk cost.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[rushmc 23]

  DJL

***

  Quote

Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy would inflict major land, wildlife, resource damage

but that does not matter to the alarmists


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/05/monumental-unsustainable-environmental-impacts/

Not clicking that garbage but it is true that many renewable projects can have a serious environmental impact. You have to fit the project to the site. When I was up in NE a group was trying to put windmills on the mountaintops until they revealed that they would have to entirely denude the tops of the mountains.

Materials are another issue, as is production but that typically equates to the environmental impact of materials and production for a coal plant so it can be considered sunk cost.

It is not garbage.
I have to wonder what other site formed your opinion of this site. Cause if you would go there you would know what you say about the site is the real garbage

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DJL 235]

I've read your links plenty of times. His method is to grab technical sounding material from other blogs, add a few graphs to make it look official and that seems good enough to fool the lay-person. Looking further into the source material it's typically from the lobbying industry that pays for climate denier material. They don't have to be right, they just need to fool enough people and generate some advertiser revenue.

There are actually way more Climate Change Believer websites that do this such as Mother Jones and their ilk. I don't read those either.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[EvilGenius 0]

The whole premise of this article seems to be that nobody is doing life-cycle analysis (LCA) for renewable energy sources. A quick google returned loads of hits and the first LCA paper cited a further 27 LCA's. Since the central premise is sketchy, at best, I really can't be bothered to dig into the other dodgy crap the author is banging on about.

[EvilGenius 0]

Even better I checked the some of the numbers and it seems the article is out by a factor of 10 so 27 Million tonnes rather than 245 million tonnes....classic!

[billvon 3,076]

>A tactic for those who can not refute the content.

It's like demanding you refute a "source" from Comedy Central. They are a denier blog.

[DJL 235]

Ok, I broke down and clicked on it. This whole paragraph gave me a chuckle:

"It assigns only costs to carbon dioxide emissions, and ignores how rising atmospheric levels of this plant-fertilizing molecule are reducing deserts and improving forests, grasslands, drought resistance, crop yields and human nutrition. It also ignores the huge costs inflicted by anti-carbon restrictions that drive up energy prices, kill jobs, and fall hardest on poor, minority and blue-collar families in industrialized nations – and perpetuate poverty, misery, disease, malnutrition and early death in developing countries."

That's what we call "a bit of a stretch".

RushMC, can you please tell us how anti-carbon restrictions fall the hardest on poor, minority and blue-collar families?

Edit:
Also, you were talking shit about an author who is a mechanical engineer in the field of thermal modeling and professor of thermal and fluid sciences but you're OK that the author THIS article is a professional PR guy with at best a bachelor of arts in geology and field ecology.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 3,076]

>That's what we call "a bit of a stretch".

It's like a denier salad; a mishmash of every catchphrase and silly science factoid that deniers have generated over the years. A common name for such an approach is a Gish Gallop.

[kallend 2,106]

Meanwhile, some real climate science:

advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1602821

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

  DJL

Ok, I broke down and clicked on it. This whole paragraph gave me a chuckle:

"It assigns only costs to carbon dioxide emissions, and ignores how rising atmospheric levels of this plant-fertilizing molecule are reducing deserts and improving forests, grasslands, drought resistance, crop yields and human nutrition. It also ignores the huge costs inflicted by anti-carbon restrictions that drive up energy prices, kill jobs, and fall hardest on poor, minority and blue-collar families in industrialized nations – and perpetuate poverty, misery, disease, malnutrition and early death in developing countries."

That's what we call "a bit of a stretch".

RushMC, can you please tell us how anti-carbon restrictions fall the hardest on poor, minority and blue-collar families?

Edit:
Also, you were talking shit about an author who is a mechanical engineer in the field of thermal modeling and professor of thermal and fluid sciences but you're OK that the author THIS article is a professional PR guy with at best a bachelor of arts in geology and field ecology.

No, I did not talk shit about anybody. I even prefaced the comment before hand.
If you go back and look at the context, I was doing to them what they do to me.

Funny how people do not like their own crap flipped back at them.

And of course renewables will hit the poor the hardest,
Renewables cost more. Period!

Those with money just absorb the cost increases and move on. The poor have to make life style change decisions

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,076]

>Funny how people do not like their own crap flipped back at them.

At least you admit you are flinging crap. That's a start.

>Renewables cost more. Period!

================
Tucson Utility Inks Deal For Solar Power That Costs Less Than 3 Cents Per Kilowatt-Hour

May 24th, 2017 by Steve Hanley
Cleantechnica

Reports of record-low prices for utility-scale solar power are pouring in from around the world. In Chile, prices dropped below 3 cents per kilowatt-hour last year. But such low prices have not been part of the energy environment in the US — until now.

On May 22, Tucson Electric Power announced it had signed a 20-year power purchase agreement with NextEra Energy Resources to buy solar power from a new 100-megawatt solar power plant that will be built and operated by NextEra. The completed system will supply enough electricity to run 21,000 homes in the Tucson area. The price? Less than 3 cents per kilowatt-hour.

To put this in a little context before proceeding, the unsubsidized cost of electricity from fossil fuels has a low end of about 4.8 cents per kilowatt-hour in the US. 3 cents per kilowatt-hour crushes that and the only potential source of competition in that range is wind power, but that’s assuming the location has great wind resources. Overall, the point is clear: fossils can’t compete with solar and wind in more and more cases.
==================

[kallend 2,106]

"EARTH JUST PASSED 410 PPM CO2 LEVELS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HUMAN HISTORY"

powur.com/sustainable.human/news/earth-just-passed-410-ppm-co2-levels-for-the-first-time-in-human-history

Say Marc, does that company which pays your salary still spew 30 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

  billvon

>Funny how people do not like their own crap flipped back at them.

At least you admit you are flinging crap. That's a start.

>Renewables cost more. Period!

================
Tucson Utility Inks Deal For Solar Power That Costs Less Than 3 Cents Per Kilowatt-Hour

May 24th, 2017 by Steve Hanley
Cleantechnica

Reports of record-low prices for utility-scale solar power are pouring in from around the world. In Chile, prices dropped below 3 cents per kilowatt-hour last year. But such low prices have not been part of the energy environment in the US — until now.

On May 22, Tucson Electric Power announced it had signed a 20-year power purchase agreement with NextEra Energy Resources to buy solar power from a new 100-megawatt solar power plant that will be built and operated by NextEra. The completed system will supply enough electricity to run 21,000 homes in the Tucson area. The price? Less than 3 cents per kilowatt-hour.

To put this in a little context before proceeding, the unsubsidized cost of electricity from fossil fuels has a low end of about 4.8 cents per kilowatt-hour in the US. 3 cents per kilowatt-hour crushes that and the only potential source of competition in that range is wind power, but that’s assuming the location has great wind resources. Overall, the point is clear: fossils can’t compete with solar and wind in more and more cases.
==================

Sure
With massive fed help.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Hey everyone, more of the "real science" that drives these people.....

  Quote

A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.

The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf




4

  Quote

ABSTRACT

The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA, NASA, and HADLEY, are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate modeling and policy analysis purposes. The relevance of this research is that the validity of all three of the so- called Lines of Evidence in EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding require GAST data to be a valid representation of reality.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

VII. SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS


In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical GAST data are quantified. While the notion that some “adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain. However, each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history.
That was accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.
As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks between UAH and RSS as well as with Balloon data.
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln