Topic: It's hard to know who to believe. - page 4. (Read 765 times)

Thanks for the support. I am usually reluctant in explaining obvious things. You did.


That's correct. But when I started discussing about those I didn't compare with existing coal based industry. I compared with "0".

---

And to add something to the discussion, I've read these days an interesting theory on Amazon wildfires hysteria.
You know, many tell that Amazon is Earth lungs and from here many wrong numbers and things were spread.
However, the article tells that


I don't know if this is correct, but it's an interesting point to be in consideration when one supports burning fossil fuels: we are reversing pretty fast some processes Earth has done in millions of years so the consequences may be ... unexpected. (In this case we "consume" the extra "stash" of free oxygen).

They aren't. Even with the best managed power plants, the CO2 emission levels range from 750 gm to 1000 gm per KWh. Coal-fired generators are going to be hard to replace simply because of the night-time availability issue with Solar power. Even then, it is prudent to use Solar power when you can.
Solar power generation effectively has zero emissions while Coal fired plants have to deal with SOX, NOX, PM too. This may not be a huge issue in developed countries but in developing countries like China and India, steps have just been started to manage these other emissions. Hence, Parallel targets of solar energy are desirable.

It is hard to say this to you JetCash, but that sounds pretty stupid. How is installation of Solar Panels on barren desert stretches going to deprive plants or trees of sunlight? 
For all practical purposes, Sunlight is a renewable source of energy as it is always being replenished unlike Coal/ Petroleum.

---

The argument about "Manufacturing of Solar Panels and Batteries" adding to CO2 emissions is on thin ground too. The manufacturing process for Power plant equipment isn't too environment-friendly either. I have not seen a comparative study of the two but if you simply consider the diversity of equipment needed to construct a Coal-fired thermal plant to a Solar plant, there is no comparison. Beginning from Humungous concrete foundations to the Millions of tonnes of support structure and Steel-alloys , the manufacturing process for Thermal plants is no less CO2 heavy.

About Rare earth, I agree that we wouldn't have Central Africa so fucked up if it wasn't for rare earth materials. But then, we wouldn't have the Gulf wars and Middle-East wouldn't be constantly on boil if it wasn't for Petroleum.

If you can't decipher reality from fiction, you're a fool.

The shit you come up, I really do wonder what you smoke.

Sunlight is an energy source, and energy cannot be destroyed. This means that the energy used to create electricity is being denied to some other natural process. One needs to determine if that natural process is less beneficial than the electricity we consume. Certainly building a solar farm on arable lane is depriving us of a food source. To compensate for this the farmed land has to be "fed" with fertilisers, and these don't contain the minerals that are essential for healthy humans. To compensate for that, Big Pharma creates artificial products that have serious side effects, and further diminish the health of "civilised" societies. It is obvious that it is a carefully constructed project with the primary aim of increasing the wealth of the rich elite. and damaging the health and finances of the bulk of civilisation.

I agree that batteries, and the misuse of rare earths are another factor to be considered. So is the damage caused by the war machines of the international bullies and slave masters.

Sunlight is "wasted", whether we use it or not. Same quantity, no matter what.
If the solar panels are not over plants (they can be on the buildings, they can be instead of windows, they can be in deserts) the "damage" of depriving other entities is insignificant (to not say 0).
I think that the problems with solar panels are different: their production may not be as environment friendly as many would like to think (and please also add here the batteries too that may be attached to the solar panels) and their lifespan may not be great (I don't know what protection against hailstone they have, for example).

Of course increasing carbon and CO2 in the atmosphere helps plants. It reducing the need for plants to open their pores whilst they "gasp for breath". Opening their pores increases the loss of water, which is released into the atmosphere. Water vapour is the single largest contribution to global warming in the composition of our atmosphere. The pro-warming activists conveniently leave it out of their statistics though. Also they are great at using misleading images. Do you remember all those smoke laden exhaust fumes from coal burning electricity generation plants? That is carbon, not carbon dioxide. Carbon is an essential element for the creation and maintenance of life on Earth.

We need more well managed coal fired generators, with sophisticated management of emissions. They are far more environmentally friendly than some of the so-called renewable sources. Sunlight is not renewable, it is generated constantly. If you divert it to electricity generation, then you are depriving some other entity, such as plant or tree growth.

who is "China"? what is that even supposed to mean? Chinese wildlife? Chinese ghosts of future past? Every single man, woman, child, transexual and apparition in China?



sounds like a manipulative ploy by the alarmist/pay-government-for-the-right-to-breathe lobby

there's plenty of questionable science suporting the anthropogenic climate change argument, but measurements of proportion of CO₂ in the atmosphere isn't part of that. It's increased over the last ~ 200 years from 0.03% to 0.04%, i.e. not much


still, a 0.01% increase has another observable and non-controversial effect; higher amounts of CO₂ help plants to handle more adverse conditions. This means the exact opposite of desertification increase is happening, as the margins of desert areas literally are adverse habitats for plants to grow in. Thus, the margins of desert areas are pushed into the desert by increased CO₂, not expanded, and the deserts shrink


you know what you could do, JC? instead of "believing" this or that, you could just use logic

You can be sure that there isn't much of a chance for that. Research publication and its control is one of the most profitable businesses in the world. I think you will appreciate this piece from "The Guardian" (which I guess has a reputation of its own).
Business of scientific publishing bad for Science? Source: The Guardian

These days there is a lack of diversification of opinions we hold as individuals. In the book Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari, he says that the ability to hold two conflicting beliefs; Cognitive Dissonance has lead to much of innovation and progress in Human society. In today's age of targeted ads and AI recommendations from Google and Youtube, we are fed our own world-views on loop, strengthening these stupid lines of Left-Liberal vs Conservatives further and further. As people on both sides keep losing the ability to hold flexible, conflicting beliefs, the possibility of arriving at a compromise in order to target the real problems keeps getting distant.

Maybe, As individuals, we all need to decide on the basis of common sense rather than Scientific data. Like if I have an option to utilize a non-carbon source of energy which is cheaper too, Why shouldn't I? Why should I go into the debate of Climate-change alarmists versus Carbon 'Faminists'.

When it comes to bitcoin; anything that is obscure, hard to understand and brings people together in its pursuit has always been valuable. So regulations or not, it should remain valuable. So Stack'em Sats!

The money is in the "commercial interests" and there's much higher chance to hear only that part of the story.
And you somehow missed the governmental interest. China is using massively coal based industries, and actually USA too. It can be one of the reasons for the loudness of the voices telling that global warming is a hoax.

The climate change is a reality. How much is provoked by humans, it's debatable. It would be good if the big countries would do something about it, for real. Not the current way, where they convince population be careful with electricity, water, not throwing the oil into the sink and so on, when industries burn coal for goods nobody may be buying, when ships and industries throwing tons after tons of petrol and oils into the waters and so on.

There are multiple possible causes for the desertification, not only global warming and carbon. It may be some sort of "shifting" of the climate related "lines". And the scientist are not gods, their understanding on all this is still limited and sometimes their funding is also limited because there's no commercial interest. It's quite a sad circle.

There really is not much chance of that happening. All forms of mass media has for a long time been used as a tool to direct the masses along a certain path, with the different sources leading to different paths, with everyone pushing their own narrative.

I also think that such factual reports would be unsettling to a lot of people, civilization is sort of a house in the clouds, and any harsh reality could dispel it.

The western world says that the world is warming, and we will all be drowned or cooked in a few years. China says we are about to enter a period of global cooling, and we should prepare for that. China has been forecasting climate change for thousands of years, so we should at least consider their opinion.

The fundamentals of Bitcoin are really strong in the opinion of many people, but others seem to think that it has fallen out of favour, and new regulations will cause a continuance of a drop in its value. I think they may both be right, with a short term drop in price, followed by a new bull run.

The climate change natzis are trying to force through legislation to reduce carbon emissions, but many research scientists seem to be of the opinion that we are in a period of carbon famine, and this is causing desertification.

Statins have been the most profitable of all the manufactured pharmaceuticals, but the side effects seem to far outweigh the very limited benefit to health. All of the raw research data is held by Oxford University, and they are refuse to allow it to be released for public evaluation.

Don't even start me on fractional reserve banking, non-government creation of fiat currencies, derivatives and all the other banking schemes.

What we really need is the release of factual and well researched objective reports, that are not promoting commercial interests, but there isn't much chance of that is there?