Climate change

Is Climate change a threat that concens you


  • Total voters
    28
Status
Not open for further replies.

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
That's pretty good money. Heck, I'd take it.
I'm sure most would. But it hasn't reached the number for "real money", according to former Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill's, famous quote adjusted for inflation, "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon your talking real money."

Still, one has to "follow the money", according to Woodward and Bernstein.

Rumor has it that Greenpeace spoon fed the reporter the "funding" story, based on their previous FOIA requests, held in abeyance until it could make the most impact.

Interesting set of documents found at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1531939-foia-response-willie-soon-2012.html

I followed it from a greenpeace link. Ol' Willie was paid 25 k out of one 80k grant. Less than a third.
 
Last edited:

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
There's not way to know if it reached the number for "real money" or not. As the money is privately donated, we aren't privy to the amounts and who the doners are. Still, we're talking hundreds of millions, IAW my previously linked page.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
Soon was not paid by Harvard, yet, they submitted to the FOIA requests because they receive federal research money.

Like all donated money, if it's unrestricted, it can go anywhere. If it's targeted, it must be dispensed to the target. The Red Cross ran afoul when they said they were redesignating some of the donations to 911 survivors to other targets.

Federal money has strings attached.
 

tracecom

Joined Apr 16, 2010
3,944
So if wind farms produce electricity by using wind, won't the energy taken from the wind impact climate? Or is there a free lunch?
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
23,408
Renewable is just that, repeating. We are barely tapping into a energy source that will not go away because we used them, unlike fossil fuels, or leave an unwanted residue such as pollution.

Keep it real.
 

tracecom

Joined Apr 16, 2010
3,944
There was a time when scientists proclaimed that hydroelectric energy had no negative effects on nature. They were wrong. The long term effects of wind energy are unknown, however there are already significant negative short term effects. The effects on nature of huge numbers of solar farms are not yet known, but I will be surprised if there are none.

I am not against wind power or solar power or hydroelectric power or any other power source. The point I am trying to make is that some people can be just as sure when they are wrong as when they are right. We (humans) never know the extent of what we don't know, yet we state many theories as facts, and, over the long(er) term, some turn out to be wrong.
 
Last edited:

joeyd999

Joined Jun 6, 2011
5,220
We already know that wind farms mercilessly hack avian wildlife to death, and solar farms fry them. But that's ok, 'cause it's for the children.

[I chose two issue advocacy sites for the sensationalism of it, but I could have just as easily linked to hard news sites.]
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
We already know that wind farms mercilessly hack avian wildlife to death, and solar farms fry them.
We also know pollution and loss of habitat cause dramatic drop in numbers of birds and other wildlife. No solution is going to be perfect. Best we can do try to minimize the impact of energy production. Doing nothing or pursuing the status quo isn't going to help wildlife one bit.
 

joeyd999

Joined Jun 6, 2011
5,220
We also know pollution and loss of habitat cause dramatic drop in numbers of birds and other wildlife. No solution is going to be perfect. Best we can do try to minimize the impact of energy production. Doing nothing or pursuing the status quo isn't going to help wildlife one bit.
@Brownout, guys like you would be trying to bury 'Big Oil' if they were responsible for the death of a single bald eagle. But it's ok if the multiple and repeated deaths are caused by one of your preferred expensive, inefficient technologies -- technologies that will *never* scale to produce even a reasonable portion of world energy needs.
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
@Brownout, guys like you would be trying to bury 'Big Oil' if they were responsible for the death of a single bald eagle. But it's ok if the multiple and repeated deaths are caused by one of your preferred expensive, inefficient technologies -- technologies that will *never* scale to produce even a reasonable portion of world energy needs.
That's right, Joey, if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger. You personify those who can't make a legitimate argument against reality, so you need to write personal insults. It doesn't bother me; write all the ad hominem comments you want. They reflects poorly on you.
 

joeyd999

Joined Jun 6, 2011
5,220
That's right, Joey, if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger. You personify those who can't make a legitimate argument against reality, so you need to write personal insults. It doesn't bother me; write all the ad hominem comments you want. They reflects poorly on you.
Sorry, Brownout. I couldn't tell from your post for whom you are carrying a message. I thought you were speaking for yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top