Sub's Alternative Energy Thread

[1972Shocker]

House Republican proposes using tax code to combat climate change

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...climate-change

[wufan]

I’m kinda lukewarm on this. It feels like a “let’s do something” compromise. If it helps the alarmists feel better about the environment, then I’m a go.

CO2 is such a small factor in temperature unless we hit a “tipping point”, but the tipping point is pure speculation. They’ve got nuclear in there, so at least it’s serious.

[1972Shocker]

This kind of thing can be helpful but the devil is always in the details. At least they aren't trying to pick and choose the winners. Where we are probably missing the boat is not developing nuclear energy more aggressively. I do think encouraging the development of energy technology is the way to go for the long term.

[wufan]

I agree. More clean energy. More energy independence. More battery technology. More cheap energy. Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself.

[1972Shocker]

Warren: U.S. Will Build No New Houses or Buildings Unless Carbon Neutral

https://freebeacon.com/issues/warren...f095b-45931029

Not sure what carbon neutral means. Does that extend to the production and transportation of the materials used in the houses and buildings?

Also, it does not appear the Tin Lizzie is very fond of nuclear energy either:

During a climate town hall in September, Warren said she would end license renewals of existing nuclear plants and stop the building of new ones.

[wufan]

Are we going to stop using plastic? Building roads? Wearing 50% polyester clothing? Stop traveling, transporting, lubricating machines?

If only we went back to the pre-industrial era where the life expectancy was 45. It would take care of social security and would create new jobs cleaning horse apples off the street.

[Kung Wu]

Warren: U.S. Will Build No New Houses or Buildings Unless Carbon Neutral

https://freebeacon.com/issues/warren...f095b-45931029

...

Also, it does not appear the Tin Lizzie is very fond of nuclear energy either:

I mean there are actually candidates in the next presidential race for the United States of America stating these things?!?!?

Even the average Democrat has to be very, very scared of these two people -- let alone average Republicans. Not to say that Republicans haven't had their kooks too, but these two are straight out some combination of crazy and dangerous.

I'm torn between wanting one of them to win the nomination vs both of them losing badly. I think Trump would slaughter them in a 1v1 due to his success and their dangerous ideas -- but I would also be a bit concerned that one them is only a single election away from occupying the White House.

[1979Shocker]

Antarctica may have set a disturbing new record high temperature

[wufan]

The Southern Hemisphere is not warming.

[1979Shocker]

An Antarctica heat wave melted 20% of an island's snow in 9 days

[wufan]

An Antarctica heat wave melted 20% of an island's snow in 9 days

Amazing how climate alarmists point to little uninhabited islands in the ocean and claim a two week heat wave as evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

[jdshock]

Amazing how climate alarmists point to little uninhabited islands in the ocean and claim a two week heat wave as evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

Amazing how science deniers misread fairly simple articles on a website like msn. The article itself quotes a climate scientist which says these types of weather events "almost never occurred" until the 21st century and that these types of weather events grow "increasingly common as global temperatures rise." The article is explicitly written in the context of broader weather events.

Whereas, every single science denier thinks a single snowfall refutes the entire concept of global warming. See:

[wufan]

Amazing how science deniers misread fairly simple articles on a website like msn. The article itself quotes a climate scientist which says these types of weather events "almost never occurred" until the 21st century and that these types of weather events grow "increasingly common as global temperatures rise." The article is explicitly written in the context of broader weather events.

Whereas, every single science denier thinks a single snowfall refutes the entire concept of global warming. See:

Go ahead and check the annual temperature trend in Antarctica. It’s been getting colder for 50 years.

[ShockerPrez]

I think Bezos gave $10 billion to fight climate change. I'm sure that the ice will return to Antarctica in a few months thanks to his generous contribution.

[jdshock]

Go ahead and check the annual temperature trend in Antarctica. It’s been getting colder for 50 years.

I went ahead and checked those trends for you. It looks like it's getting cooler in a few spots but most studies are by and large finding that the continent as a whole is increasing in temperature: https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...ill-losing-ice

All that to say, that's not really the argument at hand. The initial article said extreme weather events are more likely now than they used to be, and you made it sound like that article was so stupid for thinking a single weather event proved global warming. My point is that your side of the debate is much more prone to that fallacy.