101–110 of 413 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You want a "proper study" instead of an annual time series, comparable for over a century, conducted by millions of individuals? What a goofy comment. This is gold-standard data. The paper even explains why this is superior to nerd bullshit like eBird.
Whoa whoa whoa. Whoa! Watch what are you calling nerd bullshit. ;-)
Clearly nobody in the responses has stood next to an oil well or a wind turbine.
The title is symptomatic for the climate discourse; either for or against oil/coal and wind/solar. I find the question "what is a reliable, clean and affordable energy source?" much more relevant and productive.
Affordable is the trick, though - while I totally understand why that is important, sometimes it seems like we're going to end up saying: "Sorry we are going extinct... staying alive wasn't profitable." I know that is both an idealistic and hyperbolic take on things. The bigger point is that when people say "affordable", they often really mean "profitable". But we cannot afford not to fix the problems.
This is broken logic. Working primarily with averages leads directly to repeating the mistakes of the statistician who drown in a lake that was an average of three feet deep. Currently one of the notably large wind farms being operated is in the Altamont Pass in California which also happens to be the preferred spawning site for golden eagles. Does it make sense to assert that since wind farms are generally beneficia…
Yes. Boiling our atmosphere will harm bald eagles in addition to everything else. Bald eagles are cool birds, unless you live somewhere that they’re as common as seagulls and 20x as annoying. If forced to choose, I’d rather have a healthy world with few bald eagles than Venus with none.
The title is symptomatic for the climate discourse; either for or against oil/coal and wind/solar. I find the question "what is a reliable, clean and affordable energy source?" much more relevant and productive.
> I find the question "what is a reliable, clean and affordable energy source?" much more relevant and productive.
Seems to me like examining externalities of different energy sources is a part of the nuance of this question. Feels like you're being a bit of a hater.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, it's just a simple case of "follow the money". The fossil fuel industry is a trillion dollar per year business and their interest is to keep it this way. So poisoning the well is a good strategy for them. If you thought about it, it was clear the bird argument was always just a talking point nimby types were fed with, so they have something alarming to repeat and to get outraged, witho…
Disclaimer: I pulled these numbers from the first google search results. I don't know why they all look 5 years ahead. I am not an energy or financial expert.
[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/solar-power-market-size-2022-...
[1] https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/wind/global-wind-pow...
[2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/global-nuclear-energy-market-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So 2-1/2 acres plus roads, instead of 5 acres, and you address how long, which OP didn't mention, in no way disputing him. Not a basis for leading with "incredibly false."
Seriously, every hole results in an eventual dump, tank, yard, road, or some other dang thing and the net land wrecked per operation is five acres. https://maps.app.goo.gl/sKfYNokGcidWLGTQ7
I am not a conspiracy theorist, it's just a simple case of "follow the money". The fossil fuel industry is a trillion dollar per year business and their interest is to keep it this way. So poisoning the well is a good strategy for them. If you thought about it, it was clear the bird argument was always just a talking point nimby types were fed with, so they have something alarming to repeat and to get outraged, witho…
Meanwhile, the green energy industry is not-for-profit, volunteer, altruistic and unbiased.
That's incredibly naive. If you don't think the global capitalists are moving towards a green transition, I'm not sure what to tell you.