I Miss Ogg

[Rightguide]

I would have playfully gigged him with this one:

Archaeologists Figure Out How Long Humans Have Been Burning Coal, And Its Going To Annoy Progressives​

KAY SMYTHENEWS AND COMMENTARY WRITER
August 01, 20239:58 AM ET

A study published in late July claims that humans have been using coal as a fuel source for at least 3,600 years.

Alhough some prehistoric sites appear to show use of coal as a form of combustion, research conducted in northwestern China revealed the first confirmed example of its use by modern humans. The Jirentaigoukou site in Xinjiang appears to show “selective mining, planned storage, and extensive combustion” of coal.

Coal was found in a number of different forms throughout the region, suggesting it was a commonly-used and shared resource available to the area’s inhabitants. “I imagine they must have tried burning the coal from all these sites, and then discovered some had better quality than others,” study co-author Guanghui Dong told Science.

So, why will libs hate this news? Probably because the results continue to stack up against the cringe narrative of climate change. Burning coal and oil is causing our climate to fluctuate rapidly, according to screaming children who don’t realize the planet was in a far greater state of climatological fluctuation prior to the Younger Dryas.

More left-wing torment here: https://dailycaller.com/2023/08/01/china-oldest-coal-mining-discovere

 

[ll74]

You're an idiot

 

[ll74]

Global coal use is set to rise by 1.2% in 2022, surpassing 8 billion tonnes in a single year for the first time and eclipsing the previous record set in 2013, according to Coal 2022, the IEA’s latest annual market report on the sector.

https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-...h-in-2022-as-the-energy-crisis-shakes-markets

But sure.....we've been burning coal a long time and the timeframe is what causes.climate change

 

[Rightguide]

You're an idiot

^^^
The first Commie to be annoyed.

 

[Rightguide]

https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-...h-in-2022-as-the-energy-crisis-shakes-markets

But sure.....we've been burning coal a long time and the timeframe is what causes.climate change

You didn't read the last sentence, did you?

 

[ll74]

You didn't read the last sentence, did you?

Tell us more about natural.cycles of the earth that existed prior to humans existing and elaborate on how it affects human beings

 

[Rightguide]

Tell us more about natural.cycles of the earth that existed prior to humans existing and elaborate on how it affects human beings

You didn't read the last sentence.

 

[ll74]

You didn't read the last sentence.

You keep saying that.

 

[ll74]

Sorry, anthropogenic warming is a real thing and is contributing to climate change.

But keep on thinking that it's not ...I'm sure the next thread will finally refute it though


Also, your link doesn't work.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Weird title for a thread for which its obvious function has absolutely nothing to do with missing Ogg.

 

[Ignobel]

OGG was one of the best reads and posters and people here!

 

[Rightguide]

OGG was one of the best reads and posters and people here!

We didn't get along very well but I did like him.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

We didn't get along very well but I did like him.

True, Ogg didn't suffer idiots very well. Which is why he didn't get along with you very well.

 

[HisArpy]

I had issues with Ogg at the end but his earlier posts were well argued.

As for your article, this was in my newsfeed the other day:

I am convinced that most environmentalists have stood in the way of deploying nuclear power not because they fear it–coal plants and coal production kills more people in a year than nuclear power ever has–but because they oppose energy abundance. Degrowth is the watchword–fewer people consuming less is the goal, not cleaner growth with abundance.

https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023...or-in-more-than-30-years-comes-online-n568237

Greenies basically refuse to understand that their agenda sucks because it goes against actual history as well as technology/industry. Which points out the probable truth in the linked article t hat their true goal isn't clean energy, it's less energy and a return to yesterday's population levels and civilization.

Basically, they're as nutz as the trans are.

 

[AlexBailey]

I had issues with Ogg at the end but his earlier posts were well argued.

As for your article, this was in my newsfeed the other day:



Greenies basically refuse to understand that their agenda sucks because it goes against actual history as well as technology/industry. Which points out the probable truth in the linked article t hat their true goal isn't clean energy, it's less energy and a return to yesterday's population levels and civilization.

Basically, they're as nutz as the trans are.

JFC, I know you can think on some levels but your projection of what others believe is pretentiousness at its finest.

Is limitless free internet access not one of the most staple “needs” for the “woke”? Aren’t you someone who decries democrats for air travel even though it kills polar bears?

Yes, nuclear power is “clean air” and an abundant energy source, but there are many other problems with it, especially waste handling - we have no sustainable solution yet.

Right now you can get almost all of your energy for daily use from renewables and using less is typically more cost effective than producing more.



With luck fusion power may only be a generation away.

 

[Chernosoth]

Greenies basically refuse to understand that their agenda sucks because it goes against actual history as well as technology/industry. Which points out the probable truth in the linked article t hat their true goal isn't clean energy, it's less energy and a return to yesterday's population levels and civilization.

That's an inevitable result of our predicament, not a goal. The time for national green goals was 40 years ago when we had time and spare energy to build real energy saving infrastructure and stop suburban sprawl. Energy conservation was too hard and inconvenient, so now the USA is fucked. We are using all available energy to sustain the unsustainable. What's left is personal decisions to be ready for rapidly rising prices of energy and everything else, many items becoming unavailable at any price, and generally a steep drop in living standards.

 

[ll74]

LOLOLOL! “The science is settled!”

Yes, it is. There is sufficient data to identify that human generated CO2 has a warming effect on the earth.

 

[ll74]

Well, I respectfully disagree.

With climate scientists and actual data.

Yes, you believe in make believe things.

 

[Bray123]

Who’s “Ogg?” Where did he go?

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/oggbashan-rest-in-peace.1589972/

 

[ll74]

Actually, that isn’t the case.

Lmao

 

[HisArpy]

JFC, I know you can think on some levels but your projection of what others believe is pretentiousness at its finest.

Is limitless free internet access not one of the most staple “needs” for the “woke”? Aren’t you someone who decries democrats for air travel even though it kills polar bears?

Yes, nuclear power is “clean air” and an abundant energy source, but there are many other problems with it, especially waste handling - we have no sustainable solution yet.

Right now you can get almost all of your energy for daily use from renewables and using less is typically more cost effective than producing more.



With luck fusion power may only be a generation away.

You mean windmill farms which kill whales? Or solar farms which kill migrating birds? Are you trying to say those sustainable resources are better than nuke plants? Because radioactive waste?

Do you even know ANYTHING about Nuclear power generation other than it's radioactive?

Did you even consider that no matter what energy source we use, it has serious environmental drawbacks? So the questions isn't whether it harms the environment, it's what harm can be mitigated the best.

Genocide of keystone species isn't something that can be mitigated all that well. And that's what you're looking at with "green energy." Nuclear waste can be reduced through other processes. It's not perfect but then neither is battery disposal or recycling.

In the end, it comes down to one thing; you're an asshole who has nothing but a knee jerk denial response to every proposal which comes along.

Good luck with that.

 

[ll74]

Genocide of keystone species isn't something that can be mitigated all that well. And that's what you're looking at with "green energy." Nuclear waste can be reduced through other processes. It's not perfect but then neither is battery disposal or recycling.

This is a dumb argument. Killing animals is a problem that is solvable. Newer wind farms have taken steps to eliminate the problem.

That being said, the aversion to nuclear power continues to be disappointing and counterproductive. The left should be embracing it.

 

[ll74]

ClImAtE cHaNgE iSn'T rEaL ¯⁠\⁠(⁠°⁠_⁠o⁠)⁠/⁠¯

The Middle East Is Becoming Literally Uninhabitable​

 

[John_von_Neumann]

Newer wind farms have taken steps to eliminate the problem.

This is actually really cool. Great article.

 

[AlexBailey]

You mean windmill farms which kill whales? Or solar farms which kill migrating birds? Are you trying to say those sustainable resources are better than nuke plants? Because radioactive waste?

Do you even know ANYTHING about Nuclear power generation other than it's radioactive?

Did you even consider that no matter what energy source we use, it has serious environmental drawbacks? So the questions isn't whether it harms the environment, it's what harm can be mitigated the best.

Genocide of keystone species isn't something that can be mitigated all that well. And that's what you're looking at with "green energy." Nuclear waste can be reduced through other processes. It's not perfect but then neither is battery disposal or recycling.

In the end, it comes down to one thing; you're an asshole who has nothing but a knee jerk denial response to every proposal which comes along.

Good luck with that.

Once again your projections land wide of the mark - and you seem to think that renewables are not still in early stages of development compared to other technologies.

Recycling of lithium batteries is a new industry with huge profit potential. Good old capitalism is pushing the market there.

There are models for non-chemical large scale energy storage systems that have yet to be built that will probably be on line before your demise.

There are wind generator designs that don’t hack birds, but you know without protective regulations it’s a money first market. I’m glad to hear you care about something other than just profits.


Meanwhile Fukushima is the gift that won’t stop giving. Would you eat seafood from the area?

While new nuclear reactors are being designed in ways that ‘cannot’ go critical the entire uranium mining and processing industry is exposed to vulnerabilities. It’s a security nightmare underwritten and insured by taxpayers in perpetuity.

The more our society invests in green tech the better off and more internationally competitive we’ll be.