Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

[LeoThomson]

Depends on what the message is in the year it is stated, ice age, global warming, No more oil in 20 years. With the change to "Climate Change" they won't "get caught with your pants down"

The message is that the average temperature on earth is rising rapidly (on a geological scale) and that we are causing it. This will causes climates to change, some of it for the better, some of it for the worse.

 

[aenyc]

80 STORY WELFARE PLANTATIONS

Filled with 70-IQ illegal aliens

Enrolled in Sec 8, food stamps, free medical, free education

Eligible to work as NYPD Police Officers

And registered to vote, twice in every election

Controlled via CBDC and "boosters".

 

[Sanwizard]

This is all very true. I also grew up in NYC (Queens, 115pct) and everything Sanwizard describes is spot on. Under Dinkins the were always people being shot under 7 line (Roosevelt Ave). It was a bad idea to go out after 9PM in summer or after 5PM in winter. Our building had shootings every now and than (in the most gun controlled city in America, lol). Then circa 1999 things started to change and even shitty hoods became ok to passby or even visit. Now everything is back to Dinkins days but worse due to the omnipresent "big brother" (cameras, 5g towers staring into peoples windows - funny how with all the cameras they can never catch real criminals) and idiots still wearing masks.

Howdy neighbor. My aunt lived in Jackson heights. My wife was born in Astoria. I grew up in Flushing, and used to take the bus to main street every day and take the 7 line into Manhattan.

I moved to Nassau after getting out of the Army, cause the house prices in queens went nuts after Flushing became chinatown.

Roosevelt ave was where I got all my car parts from! That was before they built the new Shea stadium in the old parking lot.
Did you know the Jets got their name from the planes landing at Laguardia? Shea stadium was built right under the glide path to the main runway at LGA, so jets would always fly over the stadium when landing.

I used to climb over the fence when they played to watch the games. Those were the days, except for the race riots under Koch and Dinkins. There were many fights by the public housing on main street flushing those days. We called it the blan. Had a shotgun put to my head one day by jack in the box on Northern Blvd, and a knife to my throat in High School on Francis Lewis Blvd.

We lived it. Those spouting statistics have no freaking clue. The difference between Republican control and Democrat control was night and day. I am a lifelong democrat, but will never vote that way ever again, since the party has turned communist. The DSA took over the DNC. They removed God from their platform, ergo no more morals or ethics, just power and control at any cost.

 

[aenyc]

Howdy neighbor. My aunt lived in Jackson heights. My wife was born in Astoria. I grew up in Flushing, and used to take the bus to main street every day and take the 7 line into Manhattan.

I moved to Nassau after getting out of the Army, cause the house prices in queens went nuts after Flushing became chinatown.

Roosevelt ave was where I got all my car parts from! That was before they built the new Shea stadium in the old parking lot.
Did you know the Jets got their name from the planes landing at Laguardia? Shea stadium was built right under the glide path to the main runway at LGA, so jets would always fly over the stadium when landing.

I used to climb over the fence when they played to watch the games. Those were the days, except for the race riots under Koch and Dinkins. There were many fights by the public housing on main street flushing those days. We called it the blan. Had a shotgun put to my head one day by jack in the box on Northern Blvd, and a knife to my throat in High School on Francis Lewis Blvd.

We lived it. Those spouting statistics have no freaking clue. The difference between Republican control and Democrat control was night and day. I am a lifelong democrat, but will never vote that way ever again, since the party has turned communist. The DSA took over the DNC. They removed God from their platform, ergo no more morals or ethics, just power and control at any cost.

Yes JH here . Over 25 years. Got disillusioned by politics back in my college days (Slowly came to realization that USA is even more corrupt that good ol' USSR). Never registered as D or R. I do not consent to be governed by psychopaths on either side of the aisle

Moved across Hudson, but can not wait to leave NJSSR. Just need RE prices in Florida or SC to come back to earth.

 

[Sanwizard]

NY is done. Stick a fork in it.
Under these programs this entire area will become slums ala Detroit. This is destruction on purpose. They will put all the illegals there and crime will consume everything.
I wonder what the Upper West and East side libbies will think about it - maybe that is the silver lining here.

New York Launches Plan To Rezone Midtown Offices To Houses​

As Manhattan prepares to roll out the tented Depression-era shantytowns known as Hoovervilles Bidenvilles smack in the middle of New York's Central Park which will house some of the "Sanctuary city's" brand new 95,000 migrants, the city is taking action on its two other blights: empty offices and soaring rents.

As Bloomberg reports, New York City is rolling out a plan to convert vacant offices into as many as 20,000 new housing units by creating a multi-agency group to help developers cut through red tape and rezoning a section of Manhattan known as Midtown South.

The moves come after Mayor Eric Adams and Governor Kathy Hochul’s quest for a comprehensive program to address the state’s housing shortage was rebuffed by fellow Democratic lawmakers in Albany earlier this year. Much of Adams’s plan will still need state approval.

“We could not just sit back and just lick our wounds,” Adams said at a news briefing on Thursday. “We will roll out what we can do here in the city.”

New York, Boston, San Francisco and virtually all major democratic US cities are struggling with the dual challenges of what to do with office buildings emptied by the shift to remote work (as well as Texas and Florida) and an affordable housing crisis that has sent rents up to record highs.

Since conversions of offices to housing is complicated and expensive, city officials are looking at tax breaks, speeding up approvals and other incentives to facilitate the process.

Under New York City’s plan, parts of which were announced previously, the city would make office buildings built before 1990 eligible for conversion to housing, an update from the existing cutoffs of 1961 and 1977, depending on the area. The proposal would cover an additional 136 million square feet, roughly the same amount of office space as in the entire city of Philadelphia, officials said.

The plan would also allow office-to-housing conversion in any area of the city where residential construction is allowed.

“We could definitely use more housing in the city,” Bess Freedman, chief executive officer of real estate brokerage Brown Harris Stevens, said Thursday on Bloomberg Television. “It would be a great thing to do.”

Maybe; on the other hand, traditionally the relentless demand for Manhattan real estate has been largely a function of the immediate proximity to offices. How shifting that balance dramatically from offices to housing will impact local markets is anyone's guess. Furthermore, New York's admission that it has given up hope on returning to historical work levels will hardly inspire new cohorts of renters to move to the city, and it's unclear what it will do to existing residents and their rents.

The plan for Midtown South, an area below Times Square, envisions a live-work mixed-use neighborhood between 23rd Street and 40th Street, bounded by Fifth Avenue and Eighth Avenue. Residential building, including affordable housing, would be allowed in four areas that were zoned for manufacturing 50 years ago.

City officials conceded that state approval will still be necessary to create a substantial amount of new homes through office-to-residential conversions. Adams called on the state to create a tax incentive for office conversions. The legislature let a tax incentive for constructing affordable housing, known as 421-a, expire last year and have not replaced it.

“We will do everything we can to get Albany to continue to move forward,” Adams said. “But at the same time we are going to continue to do our job.”

And then socialist AOC will force them to renovate every building to make it all electric heat and stoves, and remove all elevators cause climate change.
In the meantime con-edison will be putting out the fires caused by the power lines burning up.
The good news, is all the migrants will be able to shop at Nordstroms and Macys for FREE! Just take what you want and leave.

 

[Sanwizard]

NY is done. Stick a fork in it.
Under these programs this entire area will become slums ala Detroit. This is destruction on purpose. They will put all the illegals there and crime will consume everything.
I wonder what the Upper West and East side libbies will think about it - maybe that is the silver lining here.

New York Launches Plan To Rezone Midtown Offices To Houses​

As Manhattan prepares to roll out the tented Depression-era shantytowns known as Hoovervilles Bidenvilles smack in the middle of New York's Central Park which will house some of the "Sanctuary city's" brand new 95,000 migrants, the city is taking action on its two other blights: empty offices and soaring rents.

As Bloomberg reports, New York City is rolling out a plan to convert vacant offices into as many as 20,000 new housing units by creating a multi-agency group to help developers cut through red tape and rezoning a section of Manhattan known as Midtown South.

The moves come after Mayor Eric Adams and Governor Kathy Hochul’s quest for a comprehensive program to address the state’s housing shortage was rebuffed by fellow Democratic lawmakers in Albany earlier this year. Much of Adams’s plan will still need state approval.

“We could not just sit back and just lick our wounds,” Adams said at a news briefing on Thursday. “We will roll out what we can do here in the city.”

New York, Boston, San Francisco and virtually all major democratic US cities are struggling with the dual challenges of what to do with office buildings emptied by the shift to remote work (as well as Texas and Florida) and an affordable housing crisis that has sent rents up to record highs.

Since conversions of offices to housing is complicated and expensive, city officials are looking at tax breaks, speeding up approvals and other incentives to facilitate the process.

Under New York City’s plan, parts of which were announced previously, the city would make office buildings built before 1990 eligible for conversion to housing, an update from the existing cutoffs of 1961 and 1977, depending on the area. The proposal would cover an additional 136 million square feet, roughly the same amount of office space as in the entire city of Philadelphia, officials said.

The plan would also allow office-to-housing conversion in any area of the city where residential construction is allowed.

“We could definitely use more housing in the city,” Bess Freedman, chief executive officer of real estate brokerage Brown Harris Stevens, said Thursday on Bloomberg Television. “It would be a great thing to do.”

Maybe; on the other hand, traditionally the relentless demand for Manhattan real estate has been largely a function of the immediate proximity to offices. How shifting that balance dramatically from offices to housing will impact local markets is anyone's guess. Furthermore, New York's admission that it has given up hope on returning to historical work levels will hardly inspire new cohorts of renters to move to the city, and it's unclear what it will do to existing residents and their rents.

The plan for Midtown South, an area below Times Square, envisions a live-work mixed-use neighborhood between 23rd Street and 40th Street, bounded by Fifth Avenue and Eighth Avenue. Residential building, including affordable housing, would be allowed in four areas that were zoned for manufacturing 50 years ago.

City officials conceded that state approval will still be necessary to create a substantial amount of new homes through office-to-residential conversions. Adams called on the state to create a tax incentive for office conversions. The legislature let a tax incentive for constructing affordable housing, known as 421-a, expire last year and have not replaced it.

“We will do everything we can to get Albany to continue to move forward,” Adams said. “But at the same time we are going to continue to do our job.”

You know whats funny? I worked at 2 Penn Station for decades. When everyone was forced home by the government, the owner of that building spent close to a BILLION dollars renovating it while the tennants were out. They made it really nice, but then raised the rents. Nobody came back.
Most just broke their leases.
Commercial real estate is going to be hit HARD in all the democrat run cities, which is just icing on the cake for all the dopes who voted for Adams and Hokul in NY, and the dolts now running all the other Sanctuary cities( which is illegal by the way, but nobody seems to care about upholding laws these days).

Lets see how the news spins it.... i am making popcorn and will be watching with my Smith and Wesson in my holster from Charleston.

 

[aenyc]

You know whats funny? I worked at 2 Penn Station for decades. When everyone was forced home by the government, the owner of that building spent close to a BILLION dollars renovating it while the tennants were out. They made it really nice, but then raised the rents. Nobody came back.
Most just broke their leases.
Commercial real estate is going to be hit HARD in all the democrat run cities, which is just icing on the cake for all the dopes who voted for Adams and Hokul in NY, and the dolts now running all the other Sanctuary cities( which is illegal by the way, but nobody seems to care about upholding laws these days).

Lets see how the news spins it.... i am making popcorn and will be watching with my Smith and Wesson in my holster from Charleston.

2 Penn, my first job in early 2000s LOL
Confirming everything you say! The only thing to add is that Adams and Hochul are puppets who sold themselves to the parasite class (oligarchy) who are the ones pulling all the strings.

 

[LeoThomson]

And then socialist AOC

AOC does describe herself as a democratic socialist, but why would you need to mention that if your arguments actually made sense?

will force them to renovate every building to make it all electric heat and stoves, and remove all elevators cause climate change.

Source?

Ground source heating is cost effective over the lifetime of a building, and induction cooking is superior.

Wait, What’s Going On With the Gas Stove Ban?

No, the federal government isn’t coming for your gas stove. But new legislation and research could point the way to an electric future

www.architecturaldigest.com

In the meantime con-edison will be putting out the fires caused by the power lines burning up.

Or they could invest in new connections, but shortages are more profitable I guess.

The good news, is all the migrants will be able to shop at Nordstroms and Macys for FREE! Just take what you want and leave.

Nice, maybe you could pretend to be a migrant.

 

[Sanwizard]

AOC does describe herself as a democratic socialist, but why would you need to mention that if your arguments actually made sense?

Ground source heating is cost effective over the lifetime of a building, and induction cooking is superior.

If induction cooking is superior, what is the ratio of all the chefs in the world who have restaurants that use gas vs electric?

Personally, I have not bought homes based just on the fact that the home only had electric stoves, and had no gas hookups. I HATE electric stoves and ovens, and heat. Fire waiting to happen. Sure, gas can explode, but I will take that risk over cooking with electric.

Why don't chefs use electric stoves?​

Grill Guides / By Ernest R. Keyes
Picture yourself walking into a bustling restaurant kitchen and seeing the chefs huddled around gas stoves instead of electric ones. Have you ever wondered why chefs choose gas over electric? Well, the answer might just blow your mind.
Most professional chefs and cooking enthusiasts swear by gas stoves. Why? Because they heat up quickly and offer precise temperature control, giving chefs god-like power over their dishes. Electric stoves, on the other hand, are less responsive to temperature changes and lack that fiery spark that gas stoves provide.
Chefs rely on cookware for different techniques, and they need both open flame and heat control to achieve culinary perfection. That’s why they naturally gravitate towards gas stoves. Despite their widespread use in homes across America, electric stoves have certain limitations that make them less desirable in a professional kitchen setting. It’s difficult to apply cooking techniques like searing or braising when you can’t control the temperature precisely.

 

[MurphyGuy]

If induction cooking is superior, what is the ratio of all the chefs in the world who have restaurants that use gas vs electric?

Personally, I have not bought homes based just on the fact that the home only had electric stoves, and had no gas hookups. I HATE electric stoves and ovens, and heat. Fire waiting to happen. Sure, gas can explode, but I will take that risk over cooking with electric.

Why don't chefs use electric stoves?​

Grill Guides / By Ernest R. Keyes
Picture yourself walking into a bustling restaurant kitchen and seeing the chefs huddled around gas stoves instead of electric ones. Have you ever wondered why chefs choose gas over electric? Well, the answer might just blow your mind.
Most professional chefs and cooking enthusiasts swear by gas stoves. Why? Because they heat up quickly and offer precise temperature control, giving chefs god-like power over their dishes. Electric stoves, on the other hand, are less responsive to temperature changes and lack that fiery spark that gas stoves provide.
Chefs rely on cookware for different techniques, and they need both open flame and heat control to achieve culinary perfection. That’s why they naturally gravitate towards gas stoves. Despite their widespread use in homes across America, electric stoves have certain limitations that make them less desirable in a professional kitchen setting. It’s difficult to apply cooking techniques like searing or braising when you can’t control the temperature precisely.

LOL.. It always make me chuckle when I see stupid explanations for things..

As with most issues, its not nearly that simple.

First off, while gas does have a faster response time heating up (which is why I always buy gas stoves), the response time for cooling down is pretty much the same. You might think that the response time would be quicker.. and at the heating element level it is, but we don't cook on the heating element, we cook on metal plates and pans.. The winner in the amount of energy per second we can pump into the metal goes to the gas fire.. But when it comes to cooling down, that's a function of the metal cooking surface's ability to radiate heat away. The thermal mass of the heating element is mostly inconsequential.

Most commercial stoves and ovens are gas because natural gas heating is much cheaper than electricity by a factor of 300% in most locations. Commercial kitchens have been designed around using gas because of cost, and businesses are all about cost.

As for temperature control.. there is no gas system in the world that can achieve the kind of temperature control an electric control system can obtain.. It is that simple.. Modern PID controllers can achieve stability in the sub 1 degree range.. No way can gas do that.

So its not really about gas having better control.. Its just cheaper and faster.. mostly its just far cheaper.

One could also make an argument for gas being more reliable at a smaller scale since all we basically do is take a spark to a pipe orifice. There isn't much to go wrong.

The fire and explosion (injury) arguments are both ridiculous.. Either one can cause problems if not operated properly.

 

[svetz]

Texas is now only subsidizing NACS chargers ref. The U.S. still isn't, although it seems like they're trying to work some sort of deal with Tesla.

First off, while gas does have a faster response time heating up

Induction has been shown to be faster than gas, although not as fast as a microwave for some things.

Why don't chefs use electric stoves?

While those that have been doing things the same way for 40 years aren't going to want to change. I doubt it's a big deal really. A quick search dozen of chefs that claim electric is better and there are some businesses setup to show how they can be better". Here;s the first few I googled:

• ‘I use it because it’s better’: why chefs are embracing the electric stove​

• Legendary chef Alice Waters 'absolutely ready to go electric' on stoves​

• Christopher Galarza helps restaurants and institutions shift to induction stoves​

 

[aenyc]

As with many things, there must not be exclusively one or the other. From our own experience, cooktop/stove is best with gas due to near instant control you have over the heat level. Old electric sucks completely (it takes time to heat up and cool down) and induction, while better still has the same issue. (Just for reference my wife is a master chef).
Now for an oven (At least for our experience) electric is preferred, especially for pastries (especially french pastries). Electric oven is much better for steady temperature control (Especially with units with the blower) which is critical for this type of baking.

Free markets should decide, and I welcome all options. There should ABSOLUTELY be no shoving everyone into the same direction, especially by people who have no idea about anything (governments and idiotic paid for "think tanks").

 

[aenyc]

Just when you thought this could not get any more bizzare lol

German Military Plane Dumps 200,000 Litres of Jet Fuel into the Atmosphere on Two Failed Attempts to Fly Germany’s Foremost Green Politician to Australia​

Last Sunday, Germany’s ridiculous Green Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock departed for a week-long tour of Australia, New Zealand and Fiji. The purposes of the trip were, as usual, fairly hazy. Her flight would demonstrate that “despite the great distance”, Germany and the Pacific are “closely connected by common values and a common view of the world”, and that we can “rely on each other and support each other as strategic partners”. Apparently, performing these close liberal connections for the media requires the massive carbon emissions of long airplane flights, even for a Green politician who is in general opposed to air travel for ordinary people and once toyed with a proposal to ban all domestic flights in Germany.

The centrepiece of Baerbock’s junket was set to be a tedious post-colonial liturgical exercise in Canberra, at which she would oversee the return of “cultural assets” from the Grassi Museum in Leipzig to the Aboriginal Kaurna people. These objects include a fishing net, a long thin stick reported to be a spear, and two shorter sticks variously described as a club and a digging stick or a wooden sword-cum-club and a digging-stick-cum-bark-peeler. The truth is that they’re just sticks and nobody knows what they were for. Nor were these quotidian hunter-gatherer accoutrements stolen from the Kaurna. They were acquired legitimately by German missionaries between 1838 and 1839 in the course of ethnographic research. These then donated them to the Historical Museum in Dresden, via which they found their way to Leipzig.

Alas, Baerbock was unable to play the part of self-flagellating Western colonial transgressor and reinvest the Kaurna with their sticks at the ceremony yesterday. Jens Hoch, a German embassy official, had to fill in for her, because the second-hand Bundeswehr planes used to transport the highest officeholders of the Federal Republic are too old and unreliable to perform flights that commercial airlines manage daily without incident.

Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, who has priority in booking government flights, had dibs on the only available modern and reliable aircraft in the fleet, an Airbus A350. She had reserved it for a separate trip to Australia to observe the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup. Faeser cancelled her girl-power spectatorship exercise after the early elimination of the German team, but the Luftwaffe could not rebook the flight, because too few of their personnel are qualified to fly the modern aircraft. Baerbock had to take a 23-year-old Airbus A340 instead. This plane was once called the “Konrad Adenauer” after the first chancellor of the Federal Republic, but they scrubbed his name from the livery sometime after a serious incident in 2018, when it lost all electrical power on an abortive flight to bring Angela Merkel to the G20 summit in Buenos Aires. The Berliner Zeitung reports that the A340 was itself a short-notice replacement for another Bundeswehr airplane that ended up being grounded because of unnamed technical problems.

Baerbock and her entourage departed Germany on their rickety aircraft without incident, landing to refuel at Abu Dhabi late Sunday or early Monday morning. They took off again at 3:33 am bound for Australia, but the pilots found they could not retract the landing flaps. They had to dump 100,000 litres of fuel to make the overweight plane fit for landing. When jets dump fuel at altitude, it is aerosolised; the small droplets eventually decay into water vapour, ozone and carbon dioxide, all of which would normally contribute to the greenhouse effect, but as in this case the fuel was released on behalf of Germany’s leading Green climate botherer, we can be assured that the action had if anything an emissions-reducing effect.

Back at the Abu Dhabi airport, Baerbock opted not to continue to Australia via a vastly more climate-friendly if considerably less comfortable commercial flight; throughout her tenure in Scholz’s cabinet, she has used government planes for 70 trips, while flying commercial only a handful of times. After repairs, the A340 departed on a second attempt for Australia at 1am on Tuesday. Yet again, the flaps jammed, forcing the pilots to dump another 100,000 litres of fossil fuels into our carbon-laden atmosphere. Defeated and the subject of international mockery, Baerbock returned to Hamburg via a commercial Emirates flight on Tuesday.

Among the European social welfare states, Germany occupies an extreme position, taxing the incomes of its workers at rates well above 40%. Unmarried workers without children pay nearly 48% of their wages into the coffers of the Federal Republic. Only Belgium is more acquisitive. Half of these vast revenues go towards our bloated social entitlement regime; everything else, from the 11% of our workforce employed in the massive civil service, to the upkeep of government aircraft, must be funded from the remainder. It’s hardly surprising that the state can hardly keep its ageing Airbus fleet in the air, and it’s happy indeed that even our rulers are not spared the widening systemic failures. If the decay continues on its present course, I will live to see the day when Germany is no longer able to transport its politicians anywhere.

 

[LeoThomson]

As with many things, there must not be exclusively one or the other. From our own experience, cooktop/stove is best with gas due to near instant control you have over the heat level. Old electric sucks completely (it takes time to heat up and cool down) and induction, while better still has the same issue. (Just for reference my wife is a master chef).
Now for an oven (At least for our experience) electric is preferred, especially for pastries (especially french pastries). Electric oven is much better for steady temperature control (Especially with units with the blower) which is critical for this type of baking.

Ask your better half to try induction. I am not a master chef, I wouldn't be allowed to wash the dishes in a professional kitchen, but I much prefer it over anything else I have used. Cleanup is also much simpler.

Free markets should decide, and I welcome all options. There should ABSOLUTELY be no shoving everyone into the same direction, especially by people who have no idea about anything (governments and idiotic paid for "think tanks").

Should governments be controlling substances that could harm people, like the indoor pollution from gas stoves lead water pipes, coal heating in cities... Should people be allowed to take ivermectin, mifepristone or misoprostol if they so desire, with or without prescription?

 

[grizzzman]

As with many things, there must not be exclusively one or the other. From our own experience, cooktop/stove is best with gas due to near instant control you have over the heat level. Old electric sucks completely (it takes time to heat up and cool down) and induction, while better still has the same issue. (Just for reference my wife is a master chef).
Now for an oven (At least for our experience) electric is preferred, especially for pastries (especially french pastries). Electric oven is much better for steady temperature control (Especially with units with the blower) which is critical for this type of baking.

Free markets should decide, and I welcome all options. There should ABSOLUTELY be no shoving everyone into the same direction, especially by people who have no idea about anything (governments and idiotic paid for "think tanks").

When it comes to induction cooking tight temp control is dependant on the frequency of the PWM of the unit for all but full on.

 

[Checkthisout]

To retain more heat, you'd could add insulation. Eating food (indirectly) produces heat that the body expels through the skin. To busy with harassing girls in school to pay attention to the teachers?

You sure could but the insulation also blocks outside heat from getting in.

You have zero clue how C02 works in regards to our atmosphere.

Figures.

 

[LeoThomson]

You sure could but the insulation also blocks outside heat from getting in.

Correct.

You have zero clue how C02 works in regards to our atmosphere.

You have some weird fantasies.

Figures.

Yeah...

 

[aenyc]

I wouldnt waste any time on Leo, he is clearly trolling/shilling these forums via the "Bs overflow" method to sink factual threads. Its unfortunate but we have to use the repost tactic if he sinks the threads too much. Notice how he loves posting that "bs fact check" image that takes 90% of the screen and causes thread to "move up" obfuscating previous replies.

 

[LeoThomson]

I wouldnt waste any time on Leo, he is clearly trolling/shilling these forums via the "Bs overflow" method to sink factual threads. Its unfortunate but we have to use the repost tactic if he sinks the threads too much. Notice how he loves posting that "bs fact check" image that takes 90% of the screen and causes thread to "move up" obfuscating previous replies.

There is no way you believe any of the stuff you post here is factual, no one is THAT stupid.

 

[aenyc]

Montana climate decision no big deal​

Much ado is being made from the supposed win of a kid’s climate lawsuit in Montana. The alarmists call it a victory, the skeptics a tragedy, but it is neither. What was won is almost funny, while the big ask was in fact denied. The climate kids won a little, but lost a lot.

On the win side the judge merely ruled that the Montana law forbidding consideration of GHG emissions in permitting was unconstitutional. How it is considered is up to the agency or legislature. This need not slow down or stop any project.

The Montana constitution says there is a right to a healthful environment. Alarmism says emissions are harmful which all Courts to date have bought, including this one. So given the possible harm, one cannot simply ignore emissions which the law said to do. Hence the decision to kill the law.

I had no idea there was actually a law forbidding agencies from even talking about emissions. That kind of gag order strikes me as preposterous. Killing it merely takes us back to business as usual. For example an agency could simply say that the emissions associated with a project are too small to have a discernible impact.

This decision is in no way a victory for alarmism. There might be one pesky problem, however. The Court Order says that all actions taken under the unconstitutional law are themselves unconstitutional. Presumably this applies to every permit granted since the law went into effect. It might be interesting to see how Montana handles this, if at all.

Nor is this decision a precedent for other States, except those with similarly strange gag laws, which I doubt are many, if any. So by and large it is a very small win that goes nowhere. Works for me.

What is not reported is what was rejected. The kids asked the Court to require Montana to make and implement an emissions reduction plan, all under Court supervision. The Court properly rejected that monster request.

The reason given for the rejection is correct and becoming the standard. This is that emission reduction is a legislative decision, not a judicial one. As far as I know every failed kids climate suit has been thrown out on similar grounds.

This is the big loss that is not being reported. In realistic terms this suit went nowhere important.

Even the small win, killing the GHG gag law, is based on these two features of the Montana constitution:

Its A2 (Inalienable rights) §3 specifically includes “the right to a clean and healthful environment.”

Its A9 (Environment and natural resources) §1 states “The state shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment for present and future generations.”

These are very big hooks that the kids easily hung their suit on. Mind you I do see how the folks in Montana get an inalienable right to be free of large hail, damaging wind, lightning and drought, or grasshoppers and ticks, but I am not a student of their constitution.

That the judge opted for alarmism is no surprise and certainly not big news. If there is any Court that has rejected AGW I would love to hear about it. At the federal level all of the legal challenges to EPA’s ill conceived Endangerment Finding have been rejected.

Apparently Montana did not fight the claims of alarmism. Leading skeptical scientist Judy Curry was scheduled to be an expert witness, even undergoing 8 hours of adversarial deposition. Then the defense decided not to go that way. That interesting story is told here:

https://judithcurry.com/2023/06/21/held-v-montana-climate-lawsuit/

To sum up the kid’s lawsuit won a small victory over a strange law based on a wacky constitutional provision. They lost the big one, asking the Court to mandate and enforce emission reductions. Not much to see here.

 

[LeoThomson]

Montana climate decision no big deal​

Much ado is being made from the supposed win of a kid’s climate lawsuit in Montana. The alarmists call it a victory, the skeptics a tragedy, but it is neither. What was won is almost funny, while the big ask was in fact denied. The climate kids won a little, but lost a lot.

On the win side the judge merely ruled that the Montana law forbidding consideration of GHG emissions in permitting was unconstitutional. How it is considered is up to the agency or legislature. This need not slow down or stop any project.

The Montana constitution says there is a right to a healthful environment. Alarmism says emissions are harmful which all Courts to date have bought, including this one. So given the possible harm, one cannot simply ignore emissions which the law said to do. Hence the decision to kill the law.

I had no idea there was actually a law forbidding agencies from even talking about emissions. That kind of gag order strikes me as preposterous. Killing it merely takes us back to business as usual. For example an agency could simply say that the emissions associated with a project are too small to have a discernible impact.

This decision is in no way a victory for alarmism. There might be one pesky problem, however. The Court Order says that all actions taken under the unconstitutional law are themselves unconstitutional. Presumably this applies to every permit granted since the law went into effect. It might be interesting to see how Montana handles this, if at all.

Nor is this decision a precedent for other States, except those with similarly strange gag laws, which I doubt are many, if any. So by and large it is a very small win that goes nowhere. Works for me.

What is not reported is what was rejected. The kids asked the Court to require Montana to make and implement an emissions reduction plan, all under Court supervision. The Court properly rejected that monster request.

The reason given for the rejection is correct and becoming the standard. This is that emission reduction is a legislative decision, not a judicial one. As far as I know every failed kids climate suit has been thrown out on similar grounds.

This is the big loss that is not being reported. In realistic terms this suit went nowhere important.

Even the small win, killing the GHG gag law, is based on these two features of the Montana constitution:

Its A2 (Inalienable rights) §3 specifically includes “the right to a clean and healthful environment.”

Its A9 (Environment and natural resources) §1 states “The state shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment for present and future generations.”

These are very big hooks that the kids easily hung their suit on. Mind you I do see how the folks in Montana get an inalienable right to be free of large hail, damaging wind, lightning and drought, or grasshoppers and ticks, but I am not a student of their constitution.

That the judge opted for alarmism is no surprise and certainly not big news. If there is any Court that has rejected AGW I would love to hear about it. At the federal level all of the legal challenges to EPA’s ill conceived Endangerment Finding have been rejected.

Apparently Montana did not fight the claims of alarmism. Leading skeptical scientist Judy Curry was scheduled to be an expert witness, even undergoing 8 hours of adversarial deposition. Then the defense decided not to go that way. That interesting story is told here:

https://judithcurry.com/2023/06/21/held-v-montana-climate-lawsuit/

To sum up the kid’s lawsuit won a small victory over a strange law based on a wacky constitutional provision. They lost the big one, asking the Court to mandate and enforce emission reductions. Not much to see here.

What Is Climate Change?

Climate change describes a change in the average conditions in a region over a long period of time.

climatekids.nasa.gov

 

[Sanwizard]

What Is Climate Change?

Climate change describes a change in the average conditions in a region over a long period of time.

climatekids.nasa.gov

Hey Leo, since we go back amd forth so much on this forum, I know you have probably covered your solar implementation. Inverter, batteries, panels... i dont remember what system you are using. Is it Victron or Sol-Ark?

 

[LeoThomson]

Hey Leo, since we go back amd forth so much on this forum, I know you have probably covered your solar implementation. Inverter, batteries, panels... i dont remember what system you are using. Is it Victron or Sol-Ark?

Victron multiplus

 

[Sanwizard]

Victron multiplus

Smart.

 

[LeoThomson]

Smart.

Thanks, they are expensive, but I wanted to be able to run powertools, water pump and air conditioners. In a year round sunny climate, I think one could easily go off-grid.

So getting back on track to the topic, I think a battery breakthrough combined with high voltage DC power lines, solar and wind could play a significant role in fixing climate change. Even if you disagree with the scientists and don't believe in climate change, or believe climate change is not a problem, I think solar and wind are inevitable due to the lower cost. A battery technology breakthrough would result in a lot of stranded assets and that would cause a problem for banks and the tax payer who will undoubtedly be left to pay the price for baling out the banks and cleanup of the mess left behind.