Trump Climate Change: US rebelled against Trump

[IronBrig4]

Gotta love the "scientific consensus" globalist left refers to, which is based on opinion of TV celebrities form popular "science" TV shows like Bill Nye and now a group of elderly pedophiles in funny hats, whose organization has a history of burning scientists alive for pointing out basic facts about astronomy.

You know that the Vatican has an internationally respected scientific academy, right? http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en.html

[Heathen Hammer]

You know that the Vatican has an internationally respected scientific academy, right? http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en.html

So I guess we will add creationists to the list of cooks whose opinion globalist nuts refer to as "scientific consensus".
The way they globalist left mirrors evangelical neocons is hilarious.

[The spartan]

So I guess we will add creationists to the list of cooks whose opinion globalist nuts refer to as "scientific consensus".
The way they globalist left mirrors evangelical neocons is hilarious.

You know the Vatican believes in evolution, right?

[Condottiere 40K]

You know that the Vatican also has to cater to it's base, occasionally.

Galileo's championing of heliocentrism and Copernicanism was controversial during his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.[4] He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism because of the absence of an observed stellar parallax.[4] The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture."[4][5][6] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point.[4]

[The spartan]

How does that contradict anything I said?

[Condottiere 40K]

It points out that a lot can come down to politics, even if it's obvious.

[The spartan]

It points out that a lot can come down to politics, even if it's obvious.

I was responding to the the guy who referred to the Vatican as "creationists cooks" which is grossly inaccurate.

[Heathen Hammer]

You know the Vatican believes in evolution, right?

After like what, a century of saying its Satans work? It is insane to cite a religious institution as a scientific reference.

[The spartan]

After like what, a century of saying its Satans work? It is insane to cite a religious institution as a scientific reference.

I don't think the Vatican every rejected evolution outright, no. You should brush up on your Darwin history. The Vatican church has the advantage of being very organized which allows them to have groups like the Jesuits which have a history of scholarly work. Hell, the first guy to propose the theory of the Big Bang was a Jesuit.

[IronBrig4]

The Catholic Church has taken significant steps to become more accepting of science. It has no problem with the Big Bang Theory or evolution. In the US, the religious groups most resistant to science are evangelical Protestants.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

After like what, a century of saying its Satans work? It is insane to cite a religious institution as a scientific reference.

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't believe in anything. They have no deeply held sincere values. They are desperately trying to stay relevant by shouting whatever is popular and vogue.

In 10 years they will be ordaining female priests, marrying gays, and in 20 years they will be marrying men and goats.

[Chlodwig I.]

I didn't insult you at all. Saying your view is short minded is not an insult to your person.


You seem somehow stuck with the figures of 10 years ago.
Things have changed dramatically in the last 7 years. Cost of producing 1 MWh of electricity by sun went down 81% (it means that approximately cost 5 times less today than 7 years ago) and about 63% less for the wind.
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/...Report-8.7.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_o...city_by_source

Wind and solar are already competitive....


....If something it's blatantly harmful for us, just because it's financially convenient doesn't mean it should be researched or worse developed.
Because money it's not everything and because there are hidden costs like our health (or the one of the environment) to be considered. And in many cases there's no price you'd accept to put your health at risk.
If saving few bucks on your electricity bill would mean putting at risk your health (in several ways, either direct or indirect) or having the environment in which you live polluted would you accept it?
And that's another reason why I consider your view is short minded....

Okay short minded I get it... but honestly with your thinking we would still live in caves.
Life is taking Risks, and everything can be harmfull, sunlight can cause cancer but without sunlight you get Vitamin D deficiency.
We are reducing the Polution in Europe since the 80s and it gets better from year to year the rivers in my country have never been that clean since 60s
the same for the Air. We need less land to produce the same amount of food, the land that isn't needed for agriculture anymore is given back to nature.
We live longer and healthier than ever before. Because we got enough Energy, cheap Energy.

And sorry Wind and Solar are only competetive when you ignore the fact that Wind and Solar need backup systems for the times wind and solar can't provide Power
during night. Our 40 GW Solar Power provides exactly 0 GW/h Energy at Night.
So we need a backup system that can provide these missing Power and no Wind is no Solution because wind got the same problem
our 45 GW Windpower will provide exactly 0 GW/h Energy when there is no wind.
And in some Nights it happens that there is not only no Sun but also no wind... like in the night from 28th to 29th May 2017 where our 85 GW Wind and Solar Power only provided 3GW.

Again..you're talking like solar power will be the only source of power.
Nobody said that. You need a good mix in place (hydro, solar wind) to make it work. It might not work for every country, but most of countries could produce all of their electricity by mixing the 3 of them (including the major and most polluting ones like China,Russia and US).
And this without needing any batteries..

https://electrek.co/2017/01/30/elect...-tesla-190kwh/

Price of batteries has gone and will keep going down. And that's because there's heavy research on them. Part of it is due to the increased production of electric cars.
Most of it is due to smartphones and mobility in the IT industry which is pushing to explore more innovative technologies.
This is just an example:
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/1303...r-over-the-air

No you didn't get it at all.
Norway produce (abundantly) hydropower (actually almost all they electricity comes from hydropower). Denmark on the other end, gets about 50% of their electricity from wind.
Hydropower can be regulated (can be shut down and restared depending on the need) and even stored (by pumping back the water).
So when Denmark have excess of wind power they sell this excess to Norway (and when that happens , Norway shut down part of its hydropower plants).
When the wind is scarce, Denmark buy electricity from Norway.

Now this is planned to being expanded to neighbors like Germany :
https://www.tennet.eu/fileadmin/user...r_Benefits.pdf


No, Norway is not gonna produce wind power (at least not in significant amounts) . Read above .

This kind of deals (like the one between Norway and Denmark/Germany/Neighbors) could also work between countries like USA (which has one of the best wind power potential) and Canada (which has hydropower in abundance).
To satisfy its needs, USA doesn't need to focus on just one energy source, while rather mix wind/hydro/solar and mitigate the excess by buying and selling back the excess to Canada.

Sorry but when I read what you wrote, I think I wasn't precize enough to show you my point, because it looks you didn't understand what I wanted to say.

Okay lets go

No I don't say that there will be only one source there will be a mixture like we got a mixture today.
But Wind and Solor isn't producing all the Time there are Times when there is no Wind or no Sun.
In these times you need a backup that can produce the needed Energy.

i.e. Wind and Solar can't provide anything for the base load.
look at the graph
https://www.agora-energiewende.de/de...76/Agorameter/

Germany needs in average 70 GW Electirc Power
We got 40 GW Solar and 45 GW Wind and 15 GW Waterpower installed so in theory it could provide enough energy
but in realtiy it only provides 30% because of the weather.
So even if we would isntall the Tripple amount of Wind and Solar Power when there is no wind and no sun these Powerplants will provide 0 GW
And in Winter it happens that we got a week no wind and due to clouds almost no sun (~150h) so that these Powerplants only proved 10% of there max power.
And in extreme Winter that weather could last 3 weeks.

which would mean we got 8.5 GW Power from Sun and Wind and 15 GW from Water
so we miss 46.5 GW Power.

Considering Storage of Energy
Our Largest Pumped Storge Station has 1 GW Power which it can Provide for 8h
and we only got around 10 or 20 palces where we could install similar Storage Stations
and only if we cut down hundreds of acres of Forrest which is from environmental perspective not such a good idea.
And than we would have 21 GW for 8h
which is still less than the half of the 46.5 GW we would need. (and we need it not only for 8h but for up to 150h and to be 100% safe for up to 500h)


So What about your Batteries...
how expensive would it be to install Batteries with a capacity of around 46.5 GW Power?
that needs to be provided for up to 150h (or 500h) in Winter?
how much additonal Wind and Solar capacity would we have to install to be able to load the needed Batterys during Summer to survive in Winter?

Or do you believe that our Neighbours would install addtional 46.5 GW Hydropower Plants to provide the Energy we would need during Winter
when our Rennewable Powerplants can't provide enough Energy... And how much would that increase the Energy prices?

And we are only talking about Electricity not about Energy for heating and Trafic.

Germanys Energy demand per year is
Electircity 580 TW/h
Heating 1400 TW/h
Trafic 700 TW/h

I'm not sure but I doubt that Germany is large enough to have room for all the Windmills, Solarpanels etc that are needed to create that amount of Energy.
Well maybe if we cut down every forrest and cover our whole coastline with offshore windparks
but I'm not sure if that is a good idea considering Environment and Biodiversity.
And no we can't expect help from our Neighbours because they got the same problem.







Edit:
Your Norway Denmark Example
you know that only works because Hydropower is able to provide base load, so Norway can increase its production but that only works with water or coal, oil, gas, Nuclear power
you can't increase the Output of a Solar or Wind Powerplant.

When Denmark has no wind, Norway can increase its power output and sell it Denmark
But when Denmark has excess wind power, Norway doesn't need the Danish Windenergy because the Norwegian Hydropowerplants provide enough Electricity to cover the Norwegian demand.

So the only reason for Norway to take the Danish Windenergy is when it is cheaper than the Norwegian Hydropower (and that could in the end lead to negative prices and that Denmark has to give money
to Norwegian to make them take their excess Windenergy.)
In the end that will lead to cheaper Energy in Norway and to higher Energy Cost in Denmark.
So good deal for Norway, bad deal for Denmark.

And your US Canada Example

Both Countries would need to install Additional base load able Powerplants that are only needed to act as back up for the Neighbour Country and isn't needed when both countries create enough Energy
Because you can only sell your excess if your neighbour has got a need. if you both got excess you need to shut down these additonal power plants or increase the demand to prevent a black out.
and if you both got a need because both of your powerplants can't provide enough energy because of not enough wind and not enough sun you got a big problem... You will have to build a lot of Energy Storages
Considering the Size of US and Canada and the population density it would be possible but really f... expensive.
Considering the Size of Europ and the population density... no chance.

[Heathen Hammer]

The Catholic Church has taken significant steps to become more accepting of science. It has no problem with the Big Bang Theory or evolution. In the US, the religious groups most resistant to science are evangelical Protestants.

Catholic Church is making significant steps to make profit, which requires tax breaks, which requires good relationships with ruling political establishment through embracing its political mythology (wage gap, man-caused global warming, etc, and so on).

[Elfdude]

Okay short minded I get it... but honestly with your thinking we would still live in caves.
Life is taking Risks, and everything can be harmfull, sunlight can cause cancer but without sunlight you get Vitamin D deficiency.
We are reducing the Polution in Europe since the 80s and it gets better from year to year the rivers in my country have never been that clean since 60s
the same for the Air. We need less land to produce the same amount of food, the land that isn't needed for agriculture anymore is given back to nature.
We live longer and healthier than ever before. Because we got enough Energy, cheap Energy.

Yes we got cheap, relatively clean energy. We now have cheaper relatively cleaner energy. Unsubsidized wind and solar energy are ALREADY out-competing coal and oil. The market shift has already occurred.

I'm sorry but the problem you describe is based on really poor math.

https://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-a7509251.html

In 2016 of all sources of power looked at Solar was the cheapest, that includes the battery stations which can store massive amounts of power. Nano-batteries could easily provide storage of excess power demand, furthermore the taller your wind turbine the faster the wind blows, tidal power, geothermic power, and etc all do not have the same disabilities of solar but solar is so freaking cheap we can simply produce far more solar plants, turn the subsidies towards batteries and we would still save money compared to modern fossil fuels. Third world countries aren't using green energy because they want to be cutting edge, they're using it because it saves money.

Your perspective was accurate a decade ago and even then it wouldn't have been if we had not been artificially propping up coal and oil and actively downplaying new solutions.

[Prodromos]

I agree with that, and it's something I'm working on.

But I'm not sure they're even good people. Obama didn't force them to start cooking meth. Long-haired, liberal professors didn't tell them to beat their spouses. A lot of my students came from those communities. They were smart enough to get out and they NEVER want to return except maybe for the holidays. Those who remain are either the elderly who can't leave, or the stupid ones who won't.

These folks spent the last eight years forming militias and hate groups, and peddling wild fantasies about Obama's religion and birthplace (and they included his kids too). They spent longer than that crying about "creeping Sharia" and non-existent Wars on Christmas. They showed up to Trump rallies in their red duffer's caps and cheered him on with a sadistic glee whenever he said something outrageous. They voted to hurt their own communities through spending cuts and deliberately targeted the most vulnerable. And now they're so proud that the US has aligned itself with a flippant disregard for science against the world.

I'm not proud to admit it, but part of me thinks Trump supporters deserve the high suicide and overdose death rates that have plagued their communities. Yeah, I know it's wrong but there it is.

Back on topic, the Vatican is also dismayed at Trump's decision. http://www.catholicnews.com/services...the-planet.cfm

Well most of these aren't moral matters, and those that are, apply only to a minority of people in those communities. Drugs, racism and spousal abuse are far more common in hundreds, or thousands of other countries and cultures. Rural conservative Christian Appalachians are pretty good compared to most of humanity.

[Condottiere 40K]

There are two aspects, supply and demand.

Everyone wants to sell their energy sources to whoever wants to buy it, stymied only by the cost of production and governmental regulations. And selling under the table.

You have new markets anxious to experience first world consumption, stymied by cost but alleviated by increasing efficiency.

[L'Ost]

MIT is upset with Trump because he misrepresented their research. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...-climate-deal/

Someone says 1+1=3 in Trump's entourage and the guy use this for a decision.
Trump is consolidating his reputation to be the dumbest man in the world there.

[Ludicus]

Trump's stupidity on climate change redefines the American exceptionalism in a disturbing way,
Trump 'believes climate is changing', says UN ambassador Nikki Haley

Questioned on CNN about the decision to pull out of the Paris accord, Haley said: “We have got a president who is going to look out for the environment. It’s what we do. Its who we are. We are going to continue to be a leader in the environment.
“The rest of the world wanted to tell us how to do it and we’re saying we will do it, but we will do it under our terms.”

[Condottiere 40K]

The irony being that the Paris agreement allows each country to define themselves how they'll look after their own environment.

[Gaidin]

Why pay other countries to clean their energy when we can just pull out and use that money to do our own country first?

The Coal industry was abruptly SHUT DOWN in 09. Tens of thousands became jobless with good portions of those losing homes, massive debt/medical bills, forced to leave their home towns to find work.....where is the sympathy for those Americans!? Why should we be forced to instead focus on other countries?

It baffles me how hypocritical politics can be and worse....how soaked up fellow Americans have become in it that they simply neglect the suffering happening in our own country.

You go where the work is. This is how the economy works stupid(and that's a saying, not calling you stupid, before moderators go ). They would hardly be the first people to have to move to their new jobs or to have to train for a new industry. And as pointed out this has been happening over decades. Coal was not shut down. It has been slowly dying. What in god's name makes them special?