are you suggesting that climate change is bringing more weather extremes to places that aren’t used to it?

Uhh no.

From the article:

"According to a report by think-tank Ember last week, renewable energy sources generated more electricity than coal for the first time in the first half of 2025"

It's comparing to coal only. Not nat gas or nuke energy. They are also including hydro generated power in there as well, not just wind and solar.

Also, wind and solar still have the same issues we've discussed here. They are not reliable. They are incredibly costly and they require huge amounts of land and space.

Yes, meant to add that part as the discussion was heavy on coal. Nevertheless, most definitely not a 'small percentage' as you falsely hope.

Also from the article, we are nearing tipping points & thresholds from global warming sooner than thought. So we'd better keep working on renewables.

Electricity price per kilowatt hour in the USA=$.18
In Denmark=$.36

Hence my original point is that wind energy isn’t reliable, doesn’t make money and is very expensive.

Watching FoxBusiness right now and they just said how China going big into solar, because the rest of the world is sour on solar and China is left with massive product that they can’t move. So they’re forcing solar onto their grid so it doesn’t go to waste.


Also about sea level rise…. We are right at the 2mm/yr rise over the past 100+ years. Right at the norm. It’s not increasing. S Florida land is subsiding due to 2 reasons. 1) post glacial land rebound. 2) They’ve pulled so much ground water out of the underground basins, the land is sinking.

No, you didn't mean to add that part. You posted the link, didn't bother to read the article thoroughly, and when I called you out for it then you have this sudden recall.

This has been an interesting discussion, It's managed to stay relatively civil. Which is nice for a change. However, I don't think we're changing any minds here so at this time I'll respectfully bow out.

Wind isn't reliable yet makes up >50% of Denmark's energy production.

Have you let all the investors that are putting money into wind power around the world that it doesn't make money? They'd probably like to know that.

And those dirty hippies at NASA and sea level change..

https://www.nasa.gov/missions/jason-...-rise-in-2024/

The Earth's oceans are also getting warmer, what happens to water when it gets warmer....

https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate_...-every-decade/

I just want to add one thing. I'm not opposed and I'd argue that most people aren't opposed to nuclear or having some level of fossil fuel plants. But the analogy I'm going to make it what I'm hearing.

Imagine if this discussion was occuring in 1920 over airplanes. Liberals would be arguing that airplanes would be like flying super hotels, trains would be obsolete and everyone would just fly to work every day. Conservatives would be saying airplanes are impractical because they can only carry a few people and so any further investment or research is a complete waste of time. Rail and trolleys are the future. Neither of them are right

Speaking of a not science website

We’ve as US citizens have paid trillions into the coffers of companies doing green work. It was (thankfully past tense) called the Agency for International Development (US AID). It was a runaway rogue entity that became too powerful and squandered trillions of US tax money over the many decades it was present. Look it up. Recently shut down. Anyone will build anything if it’s subsidized to not cost the developer money. In fact most of the green projects, including the molten salt solar mess in the Kali desert were totally subsidized by you and me! Total failure it’s been. But I guarantee you the developer made millions, if not more off it.

lol, a climate article from the Heartland Institute

Yeah, there's an unbiased source. I'll take NASA's research instead.

Ha. That didn’t take long! Only greenhadi approved website data is allowed. Scrubbed by Al Gore and Michael Mann.

Physics Today isn't scrubbed by either. That's one that I posted. Neither is the NASA website. Either of them are .com. Maybe you need to take a media literacy course at the local community college.

We all know why funding is being cut to NOAA and NASA. Damn those scientists conflicting with my favorite made up science articles.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/...ea-level-data/

Some more. Also riddle me this Batman. Just like they say at the end of the article, using factual data BTW, why are the rich still buying and building right at sea level if the seas are rising so quickly and badly. Shouldn’t they buy in the mountains? What about all the real big money worldwide that’s building massive cities right at sea level or below sea level as they are in the Netherlands and Shanghai China. Have any of you been to Shanghai? I’ve been there a ton. They’ve built up south of the city like crazy…. Right at sea level. Don’t you think the smart money wouldn’t allow that, if we really were under a sea level crisis?

Of course not son. That’s reality. AGW is all about taxation and control and getting acolytes like some of you guys to throw yourselves onto the alter of bull$… and defend the takeover of our lives by the socialist world order…. Project 2030.

Lemmings.

The dangers of posting in the morning fog after an international trip. Mea culpa, I can take it.

Doesn't change the broader point though, have a good one.

Defending big gubment like a good socialist. NOAA and NASA have expanded well beyond their original mission statement. They’re bloated and dysfunctional. Oh my god (says the greenhadi), they’ve cut NOAA! We wont see the hurricanes coming and we will all die. The Orangeman is truly evil! (That’s also sarcasm…. I love the Orangeman).

From the guy that wrote that article.

Solid stuff, keep it up

Yeah, hurricanes are just another socialist plot. Maybe we should just nuke them?

I'm not clicking on a rage bait spam article. Those are not facts. They are editorialized and not peer reviewed. Everything you just said is either a red herring or stawman presented as a digital gish gallop

Not what I said. But that’s good. Keep up the good work.

Probably not worth engaging with someone who isn't either genuine or just trolling. Bringing in 'greenhadi' and other weird bits just tells me it will go nowhere fast.

The data in the graphs are not factual? NOAA data and CU? Guess they’re not factual agencies. Better call DJT and tell him to shut them down also.

Funny how fast some of you read long articles…. Not.

So far you’ve posted articles from a group that says smoking isn’t bad for you and a science article from someone who has no science knowledge besides what you take as a freshman in college.

I mean, not like it’s been difficult to debunk everything you’ve posted.

Let’s see, what are those two words in NOAA, is it Ocean and Atmospheric? Yeah, really going out of bounds there with studying the ocean and the atmosphere.

Good call. I have no problem having a civil debate. But he admittedly doesn't know how climate and weather works and has no genuine curiosity to learn. He just wants to throw out logical fallacies and troll

Greenhadi = Caring for the environment puts you on some equal plane as a religious fundamentalist terrorist and continues to show a completely inability to separate renewable energy discourse from "green" arguments.

I love the Orangeman = loves a politician. Don't even care the party. Just straight up loves a politician (cringe and weird) AFTER beginning his post with his clear disdain for "guhbment".

But I'm the brainwashed one....

Because I want my lights to work w/out blackouts Im anti-environmental? That’s the problem w/ this whole discussion. I triggered some of you by saying wind energy doesn’t work well…. The rest is history. Good luck w/ wind. I live in coal country. No blackouts here. Enjoyed the discussion.

still not acknowledging that you were fooled by an intentional lie in that wind power meme, huh?

The quickest Google search will show WV doesn't even rank anywhere near the top on power grid reliability. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Maybe don't drink the tap water at home, it might be contami.......eh nevermind, that ship has dailed

...fuse baby fuse, the real answer. That fusion reactor is called the sun BTW.

Timeline of Plymouth Rock's movements

• 1774: Plymouth residents attempted to move the rock from the shoreline to the town square as a patriotic symbol before the Revolutionary War. It broke in half during the process.
• 1834: The town moved the top portion of the rock to Pilgrim Hall Museum. It broke a second time while being transported.
• Decades later: The rock suffered further damage as souvenir hunters repeatedly chipped away at it.
• 1880s: The two main pieces of the rock were reunited and returned to the shore near its original location.
• 1920: The rock was moved one last time when Plymouth's waterfront was redeveloped. It was placed inside its current protective structure.

https://seeplymouth.com/news/follow-...plymouth-rock/

When do you leave your house they took to build it?

Good for you. You couldn’t pay me enough to live in an urban setting.

Where do we go to vote for dumbest thread in APC history? I’d like to nominate this thread.

I might be related to HK.
My family has been in Plymouth and Carver since 1620

And us locals call it "The Pebble"
I think the old 1867 canopy was more fitting than the 1920 one.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Rock_1867.jpg

this is the thread I come to when I wonder why Delta pilots are so despised in the industry

All this debate about ROI on various power sources, but had anyone factored in the ROI of averting climate disaster?

So, profit sharing about 10% again?

Is this the climate disaster we have been averting of decades that hasn’t ever come to fruition?

With the new numbers of this Q, I’m hoping for 11-12.