DC Tom Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Those liberals and that climate change talking point what a knee slapper. Every now and then the crying baby is just spot on hilarious. Accurate or not, you have to admit it was a pretty good comeback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) What are the "voodoo, clean energy" efforts that conservatives on this board seem to hate? Do they make economic sense? How do they compare with the use of natural gas? Oh 3rd you know what the deal is. You know what they are and you know what the deal is, and if you were smart you would see them as opportunity both to solve the CO2 problem, to gain our independence from foreign energy, and to take as stronger position in the world economically. If you weren't aware many of the various technologies are advancing very quickly but the rate of advancement is all about demand...the innovation curve follows the demand. Solar for one....solar actually is competitive now in areas of the US certainly for commercial users (residential as well in some instances though) who can take advantage of the federal and state/local tax subsidies. The increased demand improves the innovation rate ... of course China sort of flooded the market so the companies themselves will hurt for profit until the demand gets closer to industry capacity but the innovation of the technology will continue to march along so long as there are people buying them. And in any event you miss the point in asking the question to begin with. It's not about what magic clean energy source is perfect now, obviously if there was one we would all use it. It's about getting there. Hopefully the military plays a huge role in this, and they may well. Additionally there needs to be public incentives to spur all manner of clean energy commercially. None of this is some great revelation or beyond just basic common sense. Clean energy good, CO2 bad, get to clean energy sooner rather than later good, not do anything to work on that bad. And before some libertarian douche comes in here, no market forces alone won't do the trick well enough IMO there's cause for government to be involved through the military and incentive schemes so we just disagree there this is one area where smart government can help us collectively pursue this better IMO this is not an area where I'm on board with the anti-government movement. Edited July 31, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Oh 3rd you know what the deal is. You know what they are and you know what the deal is, and if you were smart you would see them as opportunity both to solve the CO2 problem, to gain our independence from foreign energy, and to take as stronger position in the world economically. If you weren't aware many of the various technologies are advancing very quickly but the rate of advancement is all about demand...the innovation curve follows the demand. Solar for one....solar actually is competitive now in areas of the US certainly for commercial users (residential as well in some instances though) who can take advantage of the federal and state/local tax subsidies. The increased demand improves the innovation rate ... of course China sort of flooded the market so the companies themselves will hurt for profit until the demand gets closer to industry capacity but the innovation of the technology will continue to march along so long as there are people buying them. And in any event you miss the point in asking the question to begin with. It's not about what magic clean energy source is perfect now, obviously if there was one we would all use it. It's about getting there. Hopefully the military plays a huge role in this, and they may well. Additionally there needs to be public incentives to spur all manner of clean energy commercially. None of this is some great revelation or beyond just basic common sense. Clean energy good, CO2 bad, get to clean energy sooner rather than later good, not do anything to work on that bad. And before some libertarian douche comes in here, no market forces alone won't do the trick well enough IMO there's cause for government to be involved through the military and incentive schemes so we just disagree there this is one area where smart government can help us collectively pursue this better IMO this is not an area where I'm on board with the anti-government movement. Any logic, reason, or data to support your belief or is it just how you feel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) Any logic, reason, or data to support your belief or is it just how you feel? The market if left to itself would not be encouraging innovation in technology at this rate or adopt the mission until it makes absolute economic sense. Just look at how the rate of innovation responds to incentives placed in the marketplace by governments. The free market doesn't really deal w/ tragedy of the commons type situations all that well. It's a wonderful thing, the free market, but there are a few situations where it simply doesn't work that well...moving away from CO2 more quickly than we have to based on supply...for environmental reasons...is not something it is well suited to facilitate. Edited July 31, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Oh 3rd you know what the deal is. You know what they are and you know what the deal is, and if you were smart you would see them as opportunity both to solve the CO2 problem, to gain our independence from foreign energy, and to take as stronger position in the world economically. If you weren't aware many of the various technologies are advancing very quickly but the rate of advancement is all about demand...the innovation curve follows the demand. Solar for one....solar actually is competitive now in areas of the US certainly for commercial users (residential as well in some instances though) who can take advantage of the federal and state/local tax subsidies. The increased demand improves the innovation rate ... of course China sort of flooded the market so the companies themselves will hurt for profit until the demand gets closer to industry capacity but the innovation of the technology will continue to march along so long as there are people buying them. And in any event you miss the point in asking the question to begin with. It's not about what magic clean energy source is perfect now, obviously if there was one we would all use it. It's about getting there. Hopefully the military plays a huge role in this, and they may well. Additionally there needs to be public incentives to spur all manner of clean energy commercially. None of this is some great revelation or beyond just basic common sense. Clean energy good, CO2 bad, get to clean energy sooner rather than later good, not do anything to work on that bad. And before some libertarian douche comes in here, no market forces alone won't do the trick well enough IMO there's cause for government to be involved through the military and incentive schemes so we just disagree there this is one area where smart government can help us collectively pursue this better IMO this is not an area where I'm on board with the anti-government movement. So they are economically feasible if they are given federal, state and local subsidies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 So they are economically feasible if they are given federal, state and local subsidies? For users to adopt in many areas of the country yes. And that is driving demand which accelerates the innovation curve that is quickly closing the gap. In other words, incentives spurring demand have worked to increase the rate of development beyond that which the market alone would have seen. You have to approach the entire discussion in a way that assumes it's good to develop clean energy quickly. If you don't then you just won't ever agree. If the attitude is one of fossil fuels until they're gone then we'll do something and CO2 emissions aren't something to factor into the analysis then I agree it doesn't makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 The implication being...? It's more prudent to serve the economy than the environment? To serve the thing that we ultimately control, or the cosmic powers that can and ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 The actual answer is not just fracking, but fracking is apart of it. And of course the voodoo "clean energy" efforts that conservatives on this board seem to hate in lockstep are actually the answer and a big part of the short term mitigation as well as the long term answer. I love "clean energy", the only part that is voodoo is the government giving bad companies with crap products my tax money. If power companies can make money building windmills, why do they need subsidies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I love "clean energy", the only part that is voodoo is the government giving bad companies with crap products my tax money. If power companies can make money building windmills, why do they need subsidies? How much of your tax money would that be. $.02? Here, I will give it back to you. :-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Fine. But why'd ya quote my post? Apparently you missed the joke... You pointed out that he was not a skeptic before seeing the light and becoming a non-skeptic. I simply mentioned that I've never voted for a democrat before intending to not vote for a democrat. I didn't think it was that unclear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) The market if left to itself would not be encouraging innovation in technology at this rate or adopt the mission until it makes absolute economic sense. Just look at how the rate of innovation responds to incentives placed in the marketplace by governments. The free market doesn't really deal w/ tragedy of the commons type situations all that well. It's a wonderful thing, the free market, but there are a few situations where it simply doesn't work that well...moving away from CO2 more quickly than we have to based on supply...for environmental reasons...is not something it is well suited to facilitate. For CO2 reduction you are correct in regards to market forces. As to the other aspects, the market will sort those out just fine without help. As far as CO2 reduction, (which I'm not willing to concede is necessary until someone presents honest data supporting the theory, which Algore et al have yet to do, but for the sake of argument let's just assume it's true) solar panels & windmills are all fine & good, but if you really want to put a significant dent in CO2 emissions we're going to have to go nuclear. And NIMBY isn't the issue. We have a nuclear plant outside Richmond & the land around the lakes cooling the plant are primo real estate. The side where the hot water comes out of the plant is even more expensive b/c they get to live on a heated lake. What's going on here is BANANA - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. Edited July 31, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 For CO2 reduction you are correct in regards to market forces. As to the other aspects, the market will sort those out just fine without help. As far as CO2 reduction, (which I'm not willing to concede is necessary until someone presents honest data supporting the theory, which Algore et al have yet to do, but for the sake of argument let's just assume it's true) solar panels & windmills are all fine & good, but if you really want to put a significant dent in CO2 emissions we're going to have to go nuclear. And NIMBY isn't the issue. We have a nuclear plant outside Richmond & the land around the lakes cooling the plant are primo real estate. The side where the hot water comes out of the plant is even more expensive b/c they get to live on a heated lake. What's going on here is BANANA - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. I wonder what might happen to CO2 amounts if we replaced all coal fired generators with natural gas fired generators? I know it would put a lot of people out of work but one would think that just eliminating the burning of coal might have a more profound affect than all the windmills and solar panels that could be built and used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) For CO2 reduction you are correct in regards to market forces. As to the other aspects, the market will sort those out just fine without help. As far as CO2 reduction, (which I'm not willing to concede is necessary until someone presents honest data supporting the theory, which Algore et al have yet to do, but for the sake of argument let's just assume it's true) solar panels & windmills are all fine & good, but if you really want to put a significant dent in CO2 emissions we're going to have to go nuclear. And NIMBY isn't the issue. We have a nuclear plant outside Richmond & the land around the lakes cooling the plant are primo real estate. The side where the hot water comes out of the plant is even more expensive b/c they get to live on a heated lake. What's going on here is BANANA - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. Have you looked at the latest study from Muller? Once he stripped away all the variables he had problems with in some of the other studies he said the CO2 curve matched, exactly, various climate change indicators he saw. That, he says, is when he became a believer. He said he was utterly shocked at how tight the data fit together. Anyway I'm not against you on nuclear. So bet it. But we will need natural gas as a hold over and developing worlds will have no other choice. Lucky for us we 1) know how to build nuclear reactors and can do so with ease 2) consistently rank in the top 3 for studies on national capability for solar and wind power and 3) have well documented **** loads of natural gas to frack for. If these solutions, nuclear, solar, wind, and gas are some tangible solutions to build on moving forward...each with their positives and each with their negatives...there is absolutely no reason we can't find the right blend to power ourselves into a CO2 reducing, independent energy future. The point of me sort of advocating on all this is not to be some prick about climate change or hate on coal and gas pipelines or sniff my own ass. It's just to say that people who staunchly oppose the idea of climate change...and who pride themselves on supporting coal and oil (I'm not saying stop cold turkey tomorrow btw I'm saying we should be moving away and moving fast though)...are complete and utter !@#$ing idiots *sniffs my own ass* ...but these people are often the same people who have nonsensical views in a lot of other arenas anyway so they really get more due than the deserve in terms of being relevant it is just disappointing some political officials still pander to their idiocy. Edited July 31, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Have you looked at the latest study from Muller? Once he stripped away all the variables he had problems with in some of the other studies he said the CO2 curve matched, exactly, various climate change indicators he saw. That, he says, is when he became a believer. He said he was utterly shocked at how tight the data fit together. Anyway I'm not against you on nuclear. So bet it. But we will need natural gas as a hold over and developing worlds will have no other choice. Lucky for us we 1) know how to build nuclear reactors and can do so with ease 2) consistently rank in the top 3 for studies on national capability for solar and wind power and 3) have well documented **** loads of natural gas to frack for. If these solutions, nuclear, solar, wind, and gas are some tangible solutions to build on moving forward...each with their positives and each with their negatives...there is absolutely no reason we can't find the right blend to power ourselves into a CO2 reducing, independent energy future. The point of me sort of advocating on all this is not to be some prick about climate change or hate on coal and gas pipelines or sniff my own ass. It's just to say that people who staunchly oppose the idea of climate change...and who pride themselves on supporting coal and oil (I'm not saying stop cold turkey tomorrow btw I'm saying we should be moving away and moving fast though)...are complete and utter !@#$ing idiots *sniffs my own ass* ...but these people are often the same people who have nonsensical views in a lot of other arenas anyway so they really get more due than the deserve in terms of being relevant it is just disappointing some political officials still pander to their idiocy. Dude's claim that the correlating curve flipped him makes me suspect he may be full of **** because that's old news. If I knew about it five years ago I suspect he did too. I'll suspend any definitive judgment until I see his data & rationale first hand, but all too often these guys see a correlation & assume causation. It's been argued that the temperature change causes the CO2 fluctuation; not the other way around. Maybe Tom will stop by & give us his insight on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) Dude's claim that the correlating curve flipped him makes me suspect he may be full of **** because that's old news. If I knew about it five years ago I suspect he did too. I'll suspend any definitive judgment until I see his data & rationale first hand, but all too often these guys see a correlation & assume causation. It's been argued that the temperature change causes the CO2 fluctuation; not the other way around. Maybe Tom will stop by & give us his insight on the matter. The interview I saw with him said he had problems with the old news so he did it himself, his way, and saw it get stronger not weaker. And he's a scientist he knows not to assume correlation & causation his point was that in his professional opinion the results of his study so indicated CO2 as THE factor (along with countless other studies) that until some other hypothesis can credibly make the case for something else there simply is no other way to feel about this scientifically. At what point exactly would you start to think as he does? What exactly are you waiting for, what would do the trick? Why are you so skeptical still? Edited July 31, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) The interview I saw with him said he had problems with the old news so he did it himself, his way, and saw it get stronger not weaker. And he's a scientist he knows not to assume correlation & causation his point was that in his professional opinion the results of his study so indicated CO2 as THE factor (along with countless other studies) that until some other hypothesis can credibly make the case for something else there simply is no other way to feel about this scientifically. At what point exactly would you start to think as he does? What exactly are you waiting for, what would do the trick? Why are you so skeptical still? I'm skeptical largely due to the intentional misrepresentation and evasion by so many proponents of global warming theory who have opportunistically seized the issue as a way to expand their own wealth & power with ridiculous "solutions" that, even if you accept their premise, would hamstring our economy while doing virtually nothing to address the stated problem - kind of like Obamacare. Or to put it more simply, once you use a Mercator projection to show proportionality I'm no longer interested in anything you have to say. Edited July 31, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I'm skeptical largely due to the intentional misrepresentation and evasion by so many proponents of global warming theory who have opportunistically seized the issue as a way to expand their own wealth & power with ridiculous "solutions" that, even if you accept their premise, would hamstring our economy while doing virtually nothing to address the stated problem - kind of like Obamacare. Or to put it more simply, once you use a Mercator projection to show proportionality I'm no longer interested in anything you have to say. Well I would suggest you learn to separate ideas from people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Well I would suggest you learn to separate ideas from people. All your info comes from people. If you know the people providing the info are agenda driven liars, only the most gullible of dupes would accept it at face value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 All your info comes from people. If you know the people providing the info are agenda driven liars, only the most gullible of dupes would accept it at face value. We need a Chris Carter emoticon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) I wonder what might happen to CO2 amounts if we replaced all coal fired generators with natural gas fired generators? I know it would put a lot of people out of work but one would think that just eliminating the burning of coal might have a more profound affect than all the windmills and solar panels that could be built and used. if this is what you want, then vote for obama. his policies are shepherding this transformation. the coal people i know are confident that romney will relax environmental regulations on coal. personally, i'd rather obama put the medical insurance industry out of business before big coal. Edited August 1, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts