"Peak" means where most of the energy is concentrated.

 An interesting example of the very useful harnessing of gravitational energy is in the slingshot effect used by interplanetary probes. By carefully designing the flight path of a probe a large delta-V (which would otherwise require a large amount of fuel) can be achieved by a close pass by of a planet. This can be used both to accelerate probes (as in several probes to the outer reaches of the solar system) or to slow down a probe. An excellent example of the latter is the just-launched Parker probe which will travel to 25 closer to the Sun than the Earth!

In order to do this it will use no less than seven (!) slingshots from Venus over a period of six years, each one slowing the probe down to allow it to get nearer to the Sun at perihelion.

You can be rather sure that any video entitled "Amazing inventions hidden by the illuminati" is not going to be entirely reliable.

 I am entirely sure that is of no genuine relevance to this discussion.

Someone unearthed this bit of newsprint from 1912. 

Note that current human CO2 emissions are about 39 billion tonnes per year - over 5 times the stated figure - which is a reason the effect is already very easily detectable.

But its not an either/or dilemma is it. We should seek to eliminate wars AND  co2 emissions.

Farming and animal husbandry do way more damage than war.

Re the article in #8315 - amazing that the truth was known in 1912 and still some won't accept it. 

In other news... I came across this website :

https://www.drawdown.org/

Check out the list of solutions it offers. I was suprised at the top solution (ie the solution considered to make the most difference to co2 levels)

Great site!

Although the measures all seem highly commendable, I think the exact order has to be taken with a pinch of salt.  If I understand correctly, it tries to assess the impact of each on the peak CO2 that will be reached in the atmosphere (presently around 2 GTonnes), which assumes specific levels of growth in each measure, but also has to assume all of the others (because otherwise, the peak would be at a different time. If later, each measure that is having an effect has a bigger effect, because these are cumulative. To put it another way, if other measures are more effective, a chosen method will have less time to have an impact on peak CO2.

The bottom line is that everything they mention is good and should be greatly encouraged worldwide.

Brought to you by the cabal of Climate Alarmists:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/13/i-guess-we-can-stop-worrying-about-climate-mit-says-computer-predicts-end-of-world-in-2040/

MIT says computer predicts end of world by 2040

An oldie but a goodie!

It already ended. All this is an illusion of the Devil.

From a truly lousy source - the professional climate troll Andrew Watts - serving the psychological needs of the scientifically ignorant who want to ignore reality in a way no scientist can.

Seriously, how could it possibly be accurate.  Way too optimistic.  There was no way they could have factored in Donald Trump back then.   

FDR

Could also be a table of the number of recorded lies told by presidents?

Just kidding (about all the ones other than Trump).

Ad hominem attacks - the last refuge of a scoundrel!

There is no part of that which is ad hominem in the sense you mean (negative comments about a person that are not factually relevant). Pointing out that someone is a notoriously unreliable source is not ad hominem, it is relevant. As an example, if in a court of law, a barrister establishes that a witness has lied repeatedly and emphasises this characteristic, that is not irrelevant to the reliability of their evidence, nor is the barrister indulging in an ad hominem attack.

I understand that as someone who has surely been misguided in some of the same ways (inconsistent as they surely are) that Andrew Watts has been misguided, you are less able to see this as a fault. But it takes a person as blind as a flat Earther to scientific facts to think that temperatures have not been rising pretty much as the scientific literature agrees. Watts is such a person (or at least was: I have no idea if he has given up in light of the largest and most precisely recorded spike in global temperatures ever seen, over the past few years).

The first trillion Watts of wind and solar generating capacity is now installed.

The next trillion Watts will take 5 years to install and will cost 50% less than the first trillion!

And then there will be a third a few years later .

And a fourth a couple after that.

You get the picture.

[In the important US market, renewables produced more power than nuclear in January to May 2018].