I find it very intriguing how everybody who disagrees with you is a grifter or bought and paid for somehow, but there you go
1 Like
You seem very put out that I might be right so you’ve decided to resort to stock slogans spouted by contrarians who don’t have an actual argument.
Care to take me up in an evaluation of whether this Patrick Moore chap linked to above is a grifter?
1 Like
Do I seem put out? I think you want me to be put out and have projected that on to me. Anyone who disagrees with your world view is a fascist, or if they’re too left to be a fascist you say they’re bought and paid for.
It’s evident from every argument you’ve formed here.
Yes, you do seem put out.
You seem put out again here.
Again, that post is nothing but hot air, which in the worldview of the likes of you, means cold air, because of course man made climate change isn’t happening, or something.
does a reply to you automatically mean someone is put out…
solved.
You posted unprompted and your tone was one of somebody who is deeply offended.
I think that’s a bit of a giveaway that somebody is “put out”.
Now, the reason I posted is that the chap linked to by @glenshane is a guy called Patrick Moore.
I’d never heard of the chap but given he was linked to by a poster with a proven record of believing absolute fruit loops on pretty much every subject, I figured it’d be a fair guess that this chap might be an utter fruit loop too.
Now, I’ve taken a small selection of information about this chap and copied and pasted below, but you’re welcome to read the entire article.
What do you think? Grifter, fraud, or somebody we should be listening to?
I think it’s a fairly easy answer but sure you go on there and tell us.
Patrick Albert Moore (born June 15, 1947) is a Canadian industry consultant, former activist, and past president of Greenpeace Canada. Since leaving Greenpeace in 1986,[2] Moore has criticized the environmental movement for what he sees as scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental movement “abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism”.[3] Greenpeace has criticized Moore, calling him “a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry”[4] who “exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson”.[5]
Since leaving Greenpeace, Moore has frequently taken sharp public stances against a number of major environmental groups, including Greenpeace itself, on many issues including forestry,[6] nuclear energy,[7] genetically modified organisms,[8] and pesticide use.[9] Moore has also denied the consensus of the scientific community on climate change, for example by claiming that increased carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere is beneficial, that there is no proof that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for global warming, and that even if true, increased temperature would be beneficial to life on Earth.[10] These views are contradicted by the scientific consensus on the effects of global warming, which expects climate change to have a significant and irreversible negative impact on climate and weather events around the world, posing severe risks like ocean acidification and sea level rise to human society and to other organisms.[11][12][13]
Attacks on Greta Thunberg[edit]
Moore has claimed that climate change activist Greta Thunberg is “Evil”, described her as a “puppet” with a mental disorder, compared the individuals he alleges are controlling her to “Hitler”, and accused her parents of abusing her.[66][67]
You’d hardly take Wikipedia seriously at this stage
Ah, yeah, the people you should really take seriously are the head the balls who deny the Bucha massacre. Like your last tweeter.
I know nothing about him…i was drawing your attention to the video
“The video”.
“Soros”.
Ah yes, this would be the same George Soros who demonstrably finds it hard to speak at 90 years of age or whatever he is and yet simultaneously is the all knowing master of the universe, the sinister "globalist (dahn dahn dahhhhnnnnn) puppetmaster straight out of the pages of the Protocols of the Elders Of Zion.
Something like that.
That’s your department, sooner you realise it the better
What’s your department?
Yes there is a lump of bird shit on the roof of the car that I confidently assumed the rain would wash off but no it’s there three weeks now.
1 Like
Skip to 1 minute and 11 seconds. They had global warming sussed 20 odd years ago on entourage.
‘The science’
Ryanair who dont pay tax on Fuel are going after school buses
1 Like
Getting kids to school isn’t profitable
2:07pm
The Argonne National Laboratory in the US has essentially cracked the battery technology for electric vehicles, discovering a way to raise the future driving range of standard EVs to a thousand miles or more. It promises to do so cheaply without exhausting the global supply of critical minerals in the process.
The joint project with the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) has achieved a radical jump in the energy density of battery cells. The typical lithium-ion battery used in the car industry today stores about 200 watt-hours per kilo (Wh/kg). Their lab experiment has already reached 675 Wh/kg with a lithium-air variant.
This is a high enough density to power trucks, trains, and arguably mid-haul aircraft, long thought to be beyond the reach of electrification. The team believes it can reach 1,200 Wh/kg. If so, almost all global transport can be decarbonised more easily than we thought, and probably at a negative net cost compared to continuation of the hydrocarbon status quo.
The Argonne Laboratory in Chicago is not alone in pushing the boundaries of energy storage and EV technology. The specialist press reports eye-watering breakthroughs almost every month. America, Europe, China and Japan are all in a feverish global race for battery dominance – or survival – and hedge funds are swarming over the field.
I highlight this paper because US national labs have AAA credibility. The study is peer-reviewed and has just appeared in the research journal Science. Their solid-state battery has achieved the highest energy density yet seen anywhere in the world. And sometimes you have to pick on one to tell a larger story.
The science paper says the process can “theoretically deliver an energy density that is comparable to that of gasoline”, a remarkable thought that slays some stubborn shibboleths. It is not for today, but it is not for the remote future either. It typically takes five or so breakthroughs of this kind in battery technology to reach manufacturing.
Professor Larry Curtiss, the project leader, told me that his battery needs no cobalt. That eliminates reliance on the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), which accounts for 74pc of the world’s production and has become a Chinese economic colony for the extraction of raw materials.
Beijing has already gained a lockhold on the supply chain through ownership or control over three quarters of the DRC’s major cobalt mines. Russia is the world’s third. It is planning to raise that share by tearing up the marine bed off the Pacific coast.
Reports by the United Nations and activist groups leave no doubt that cobalt mining in the DRC is an ecological and human disaster, with some 40,000 children working for a pittance in toxic conditions for small ‘artisanal’ mines. It has become a byword for North-South exploitation.
Needless to say, the horrors of the cobalt supply chain have been seized on by fossil “realists” (i.e. vested interests) and Putin’s cyber-bots to impugn the moral claims of the green energy transition. The Argonne-IIF technology should make it harder to sustain that line of attack.
Prof Curtiss said the current prototype is based on lithium but does not have to be. “The same type of battery could be developed with sodium. It will take more time, but can be done,” he said. Switching to sodium would halve the driving range but it would still be double today’s generation of batteries.
Sodium is ubiquitous. There are deposits in Dorset, Cheshire, or Ulster. The US and Canada have vast salt lakes. Sodium can be produced cheaply from seawater in hot regions via evaporation. There is no supply constraint.
This knocks out another myth: that the EV revolution is impossible on a planetary scale because there either is not enough lithium, or not enough at viable cost under free market conditions in states aligned with the Western democracies. (The copper shortage is more serious, but there may be solutions for that as well using graphene with aluminium).
The International Energy Agency estimates that demand for lithium will rise 20-fold by 2040 if we rely on existing battery technology. The Australians are the world’s biggest producers today. But the greatest long-term deposits are in the Lithium Triangle of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile, which are in talks to create an OPEC-style lithium cartel. China’s Tianqui owns 22pc of the Chilean group SQM, the world’s second-biggest lithium miner.
A lithium recycling industry will mitigate the problem. In the end, lithium can be extracted from seawater. It is highly diluted at 180 parts per billion but research suggests that it could be isolated for as little as $5 a kilo. If so, the lithium scare is just another of a long list of seemingly insurmountable barriers that fall away with time. The march of clean-tech is littered with such false scares.
For readers with a better grip on chemistry than me, the Argonne-IIF uses a solid electrolyte made from a ceramic polymer based on nanoparticles. This does require expensive materials.
It achieves a reaction of four molecules at room temperature instead of the usual one or two. It is able to extract oxygen from the surrounding air to run the reaction, solving a problem that has held back development for a decade. It can operate over a thousand cycles of charging and discharging. It is safer and less likely to catch fire than today’s batteries.
What the Argonne-IIF battery and other global breakthroughs show collectively is that energy science is moving so fast that what seemed impossible five years ago is already a discernible reality, and that we will be looking at a very different technological landscape before the end of this decade.
Germany and Italy last week succeeded in blocking EU’s plans for ban on petrol and diesel sales by 2035.They might just as well bark at the moon or command the waves to recede. Moore’s Law and the learning curve of new technology has already sealed the fate of the combustion engine – with or without net zero.
The legacy companies cannot save their sunk investment in fossil motors – unless the EU retreats into fortress protectionism, which would be economic suicide. To try would be to guarantee the total destruction of Europe’s car industry. The only hope of saving it is to go for broke on electrification before global rivals run away with the prize.
The coming battery technology kills the case for hydrogen in cars, vans, buses, or trucks, and perhaps also for trains and aircraft, whether it is “green” from wind and solar via electrolysis or “blue” from natural gas with carbon capture. The energy loss involved makes no sense. It is much cheaper and more efficient to electrify wherever possible.
Clean hydrogen is too valuable to squander. We need it to replace dirty hydrogen used in industry. We need it for fertilisers, green steel, container shipping, and long-term storage in saline aquifers to back up renewables during a windless Dunkelflaute. We do not need it for road transport.
My advice to corporate bosses and ministers: keep up with the world’s scientific literature, or you will be massacred.
2 Likes