Global Warming Advocates

[DC Tom]

just a brief aside...read any major paleoclimatological study done, and they almost exclusively say that we are in a warming trend now in relation to past climate. Theres a nice little cycle that repeats, containing roughly 90,000 years of cooling followed by 10,000 years of warming. A lot of studies seem to think we are nearing the end of the warming phase as well.

 

**i can get the sources for these, because i know 1 moron, check that, poster, who will question the sources and claim they are wrong. The girlfriend has been doing a paleoclimatology paper, and theres over 20 books/papers sitting on our table at home. Sorry tho, no wikipedia link.

 

But I can link to a report that Al Gore won an Oscar for reporting global warming, so clearly you're wrong.

[Orton's Arm]

And why it's irresistible to call you an idiot.

 

No one has been disputing that human activity has led to increased CO2 levels, or other pollutants. What the argument is about is whether this "science" is pushing for unnecessary curbs on known technology and known impact to adopt potentially more harmful remedies. Unless the remedy for the growing world population to go back to living standards of 1940's, you have to have a reasonable balance of imposing emissions curbs and allowing industry to grow to provide the needs that people demand.

 

You seem to have a bug up your arse about the automobile industry, yet are perfectly comfortable with replacing the entire electrical generating capacity of the US with nukular plants.

 

I may want to continue eating the berries, especially if the likes of you tell me that apples will be better for my health.

I'm sorry, but there was nothing at all in my post to justify your desire to call me an idiot. My displeasure with current human activity stems from the changes we're making to the Earth's atmosphere, especially CO2 levels. Nuclear power isn't a perfect solution, but at least whatever problems it would create would be local.

 

Nobody wants to return to a 1940s-style living standard. But there are prudent actions we could take that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions without the dire consequences to our living standards you've described. We need new nuclear power plants, improved pollution standards for existing coal plants, improved fuel efficiency requirements for 18 wheelers, light trucks, and SUVs, a more tax-friendly situation for freight trains and other non-automotive means of locomotion, even satellites to beam solar energy to the Earth. We also need to be doing a much better job of helping the Third World control its catastrophic population boom. Collectively, these measures would not only improve the environment, they'd probably give us a higher standard of living than simply sitting around and ignoring the environment would.

[GG]

I'm sorry, but there was nothing at all in my post to justify your desire to call me an idiot. My displeasure with current human activity stems from the changes we're making to the Earth's atmosphere, especially CO2 levels. Nuclear power isn't a perfect solution, but at least whatever problems it would create would be local.

 

Nobody wants to return to a 1940s-style living standard. But there are prudent actions we could take that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions without the dire consequences to our living standards you've described. We need new nuclear power plants, improved pollution standards for existing coal plants, improved fuel efficiency requirements for 18 wheelers, light trucks, and SUVs, a more tax-friendly situation for freight trains and other non-automotive means of locomotion, even satellites to beam solar energy to the Earth. We also need to be doing a much better job of helping the Third World control its catastrophic population boom. Collectively, these measures would not only improve the environment, they'd probably give us a higher standard of living than simply sitting around and ignoring the environment would.

 

The reason you are an idiot is that you can't get it through your head that replacing cheap and abundant oil & coal fuel with new (and non-existent technology) will cause major dislocations in the economy. You can't get it through your head that a greater population shift to the Southern states and the increased electricity need to accommodate the population growth in Texas & Dixie means more than simply replacing the generating and transmission capacity that exists today. How in the world do you classify nuclear waste as a local problem? You can, if you ignore the inconvenience that you'll probably need to build at least two nukes in every state. Perhaps 100 local issues isn't a problem in your world.

 

And who says that no one is addressing the issues? They are being addressed. But luckily thy are being handled by people who realize the need to be pragmatic in balancing the huge demand and the available supply of energy.

 

What gets me is that your positions are so "pie-in-the-sky golly gee we should do this" theoretical, that even a nukular supporter like me can pick apart your ridiculous arguments in one minute. I also crack up about morons like you who cry about Third World problems, yet when practical solutions are proposed to lift the economic well being of Third World countries, retreat into a protectionist shell. Unless you can't connect the dots between the surge of immigrants to the US and the problems in their own countries.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Now there is a relentless truth.

 

Not sure if it is the truth (what AD sad) about the base(s)... True the fear mongering is there... IMO, it is what swings people to each side.

 

I consider myself in the base on the left... Yet, fear has nothing to do with it... I could give a damn about nuclear war or global warming... Never did... Heck, I pollute and burn gas like a pig... Nukes? WTF am I gonna do about it? Lose sleep at night?

 

Fear doesn't drive... My perception of what is "right", I feel does...

[Orton's Arm]

The reason you are an idiot is that you can't get it through your head that replacing cheap and abundant oil & coal fuel with new (and non-existent technology) will cause major dislocations in the economy. You can't get it through your head that a greater population shift to the Southern states and the increased electricity need to accommodate the population growth in Texas & Dixie means more than simply replacing the generating and transmission capacity that exists today. How in the world do you classify nuclear waste as a local problem? You can, if you ignore the inconvenience that you'll probably need to build at least two nukes in every state. Perhaps 100 local issues isn't a problem in your world.

 

And who says that no one is addressing the issues? They are being addressed. But luckily thy are being handled by people who realize the need to be pragmatic in balancing the huge demand and the available supply of energy.

 

What gets me is that your positions are so "pie-in-the-sky golly gee we should do this" theoretical, that even a nukular supporter like me can pick apart your ridiculous arguments in one minute. I also crack up about morons like you who cry about Third World problems, yet when practical solutions are proposed to lift the economic well being of Third World countries, retreat into a protectionist shell. Unless you can't connect the dots between the surge of immigrants to the US and the problems in their own countries.

Your arguments are weak, and interspersing personal insults makes them seem even weaker. For example, you've characterized the problem of nuclear waste as "100 local issues" despite the fact the nuclear waste could be shipped to one central nuclear waste dump. The creation of such a central repository is already underway.

 

I'm fully aware replacing legacy fossil fuels with renewable energy will require economic change and technological advancement. That's why I want the necessary changes to begin as soon as possible, instead of the passive waiting you seem to propose. Let's say that in ten or 15 years, light sweet crude hits $200 a barrel. Wouldn't it be nice to have the technology and infrastructure in place to transition to an oil-free economy? By beginning the transition now, we leave ourselves less vulnerable to future price spikes for oil or other legacy energy sources.

 

You accuse me of "retreating into a protectionist shell" whenever "practical solutions" to Third World problems are proposed. Other than allowing the U.S. to be absorbed into the Third World--which isn't a long-term solution to anything--what "practical solutions" to the Third World's problems have you seen me oppose?

 

You claim environmental issues are being addressed. Unfortunately, that claim is untrue. There is no systematic effort in play to cause us to be more environmentally responsible. Our automotive policy (or lack thereof) is an excellent case in point. The only bright spot I see are (generally small, start-up) companies which are developing better solar cells, potentially viable electric cars, and many of the other things we need. But we won't be getting much more nuclear power anytime soon, thanks to overly alarmist views codified into law. Nor will we be getting the solar power satellites we need, and which are too expensive for a private company to create. We're getting a manned mission to Mars instead!

 

Nor are we taking the easiest and most obvious step to curb the demand for energy in this country--immigration reform. Greater levels of environmental responsibility are coming from start-ups, and these (potential) improvements are coming despite an almost breath-taking level of government-level indifference to the environment.

[/dev/null]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html

[GG]

Your arguments are weak, and interspersing personal insults makes them seem even weaker. For example, you've characterized the problem of nuclear waste as "100 local issues" despite the fact the nuclear waste could be shipped to one central nuclear waste dump. The creation of such a central repository is already underway.

 

Riiight. My arguments are weak.

 

And exactly how is the nukular waste going to be shipped from Maine to Arizona? My guess is that Entergy will hire Kelly Holcomb to throw the waste across country to avoid the pesky highways and clogged rail lines. Maybe in addition to the big hole in the mountain, he'll dig a tunnel through every state to transport the spent fuel.

 

 

I'm fully aware replacing legacy fossil fuels with renewable energy will require economic change and technological advancement. That's why I want the necessary changes to begin as soon as possible, instead of the passive waiting you seem to propose. Let's say that in ten or 15 years, light sweet crude hits $200 a barrel. Wouldn't it be nice to have the technology and infrastructure in place to transition to an oil-free economy? By beginning the transition now, we leave ourselves less vulnerable to future price spikes for oil or other legacy energy sources.

 

You claim environmental issues are being addressed. Unfortunately, that claim is untrue. There is no systematic effort in play to cause us to be more environmentally responsible. Our automotive policy (or lack thereof) is an excellent case in point. The only bright spot I see are (generally small, start-up) companies which are developing better solar cells, potentially viable electric cars, and many of the other things we need. But we won't be getting much more nuclear power anytime soon, thanks to overly alarmist views codified into law. Nor will we be getting the solar power satellites we need, and which are too expensive for a private company to create. We're getting a manned mission to Mars instead!

 

The only thing passive is the air that flows between your ears. People have been working on alternative fuels for over 35 years. Europe has a much bigger energy problem than we do, and they haven't stumbled onto cold fusion, yet. The engineers there still produce more heartpounding BMWs & Benzes than Swatchcars.

 

Billions of R&D have been devoted to energy in two generations, and still nothing comes close to the efficiency of fossil fuels. Even with oil spikes and possible interruption of Mid East or Venezuelan oil, it will still be the best option until it is all gone.

 

It would be nice to have a perfect energy source out of hot air, but it ain't happening soon. In all the years of research, no one has a bold claim that electric cars will be ubiquitous by the end of our lifetime. The best thing that science has accomplished so far is a battery the size of a Yugo, that costs $50K and will run for 100 miles.

 

Par for the course for you - you still haven't addressed how you will realistically supply all the new electricity for your brave new world. We keep hearing that nukular energy is a local issue. Well golly, it is. Now find 100 localities that will be happy to house the new nuke plants.

 

What about the transmission grid? Little details on how you will wheel the electricity from the nuke plant to the people (current grid won't be able to handle the increased load) Who will pay for the new infrastructure? Are you ready to sit through a 3 year economic slump as consumers' rates skyrocket to pay for the utilities' spending? Did you even consider what will happen to electric cars that die? Do we create Yucca Mountain, the Sequel to store the dead batteries? Yes, I know, another "local" problem.

 

Yet, you get upset for being called an idiot, but never answer any question people ask in these "debates."

 

 

You accuse me of "retreating into a protectionist shell" whenever "practical solutions" to Third World problems are proposed. Other than allowing the U.S. to be absorbed into the Third World--which isn't a long-term solution to anything--what "practical solutions" to the Third World's problems have you seen me oppose?

 

Nor are we taking the easiest and most obvious step to curb the demand for energy in this country--immigration reform. Greater levels of environmental responsibility are coming from start-ups, and these (potential) improvements are coming despite an almost breath-taking level of government-level indifference to the environment.

 

Yes, I heard that before. Pablo sure uses up a lot of electricity when he crosses the border.

 

The US is not going to be absorbed into the third world. But if we are willing to make sacrifices, a lot more can be done for mankind by helping the thirld world on its path to modernization. Clean water & better food will do far more good for humanity than banning SUVs.

 

And yes, you are still an idiot. Because only an idiot would cry that his opinions on scientifically disproven eugenics are stifled because it's a POV opposed by mainstream science, yet blindly accept unproven theories of global warming by mainstream climatologists.

[Fezmid]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html

 

It would've been more effective if you would've quoted Holcomb's complaint:

"We're getting a manned mission to Mars instead! "

 

But understanding the solar system has no benefit for us here on earth, right?

 

Gore's probably going to say that the rollerskates we sent to Mars are what's causing the warming there.

[Orton's Arm]

Riiight. My arguments are weak.

 

And exactly how is the nukular waste going to be shipped from Maine to Arizona?

I don't really know where to begin. You say that the U.S. isn't being absorbed into the Third World, despite the fact we're allowing ourselves to be colonized and populated by Third World nations. You say Third World immigrants don't represent an environmental problem, despite the large population increase they're causing, and despite the fact the average American is responsible for far more greenhouse emissions than the average Third World denizen. You say nuclear waste can't be shipped from Maine to Arizona, despite our decades of experience in shipping nuclear waste from one place to another. You say that fossil fuels will be the best available energy source until they've all been used up. However, it's likely demand for fossil fuels will keep going up, while the quantity of oil collected globally will begin to decline. The combination of these two factors will cause oil prices to continue to rise, until alternative sources of energy start to make economic sense. You say basis for eugenics has been scientifically disproven, despite the fact that arguments against eugenics are based on political considerations, and not scientific knowledge. You imply the power grid can't be upgraded to accommodate the demands of electric vehicles.

 

Yes, Europe has a much bigger energy problem than we do. They also rely far more heavily than us on mass transit, their passenger rail service is light years ahead of ours, and the vehicles they do use are typically more fuel efficient.

 

You question whether electric vehicles will be viable in our lifetime. Phoenix Motorcars is currently developing an all-electric vehicle with a 250 mile range, that can recharge in ten minutes, with a maximum speed of 95 - 120 MPH, and that can accelerate from 0 - 60 in ten seconds. It uses a non-toxic, NanoSafe battery. Initially, the vehicles are expected to cost around $45,000. I could easily see the price coming down once they start manufacturing these things in serious volumes. Electric cars don't need oil changes. They don't have transmissions, spark plugs, exhaust systems, catalytic converters, or even engines for crying out loud. Every 10,000 miles, you need to check the brakes of an electric car, and maybe rotate the tires. That's it as far as required maintenance. You have no idea how many fewer moving parts there are in an electric car than a gas-powered vehicle. An electric car doesn't require repairs much more often than any other electric appliance. So yes, this is a direction in which we should be moving.

[Orton's Arm]

It would've been more effective if you would've quoted Holcomb's complaint:

"We're getting a manned mission to Mars instead! "

 

But understanding the solar system has no benefit for us here on earth, right?

 

Gore's probably going to say that the rollerskates we sent to Mars are what's causing the warming there.

His was actually a very interesting article. It's just that we're learning a lot about Mars from unmanned missions anyway. While manned missions are somewhat better, they're a lot more expensive. Instead of putting tens of billions of dollars into--possibly--learning slightly more about global warming, I'd rather spend the money doing something constructive to actually solve the problem of fossil fuel dependence. Massive solar satellites could transmit electrical energy to the earth; thereby curbing our dependence on coal, natural gas, and even nuclear power. And we could recoup at least part of the investment by charging people for the resultant electricity.

[GG]

I don't really know where to begin. You say that the U.S. isn't being absorbed into the Third World, despite the fact we're allowing ourselves to be colonized and populated by Third World nations. You say Third World immigrants don't represent an environmental problem, despite the large population increase they're causing, and despite the fact the average American is responsible for far more greenhouse emissions than the average Third World denizen. You say nuclear waste can't be shipped from Maine to Arizona, despite our decades of experience in shipping nuclear waste from one place to another. You say that fossil fuels will be the best available energy source until they've all been used up. However, it's likely demand for fossil fuels will keep going up, while the quantity of oil collected globally will begin to decline. The combination of these two factors will cause oil prices to continue to rise, until alternative sources of energy start to make economic sense. You say basis for eugenics has been scientifically disproven, despite the fact that arguments against eugenics are based on political considerations, and not scientific knowledge. You imply the power grid can't be upgraded to accommodate the demands of electric vehicles.

 

Yes, Europe has a much bigger energy problem than we do. They also rely far more heavily than us on mass transit, their passenger rail service is light years ahead of ours, and the vehicles they do use are typically more fuel efficient.

 

You question whether electric vehicles will be viable in our lifetime. Phoenix Motorcars is currently developing an all-electric vehicle with a 250 mile range, that can recharge in ten minutes, with a maximum speed of 95 - 120 MPH, and that can accelerate from 0 - 60 in ten seconds. It uses a non-toxic, NanoSafe battery. Initially, the vehicles are expected to cost around $45,000. I could easily see the price coming down once they start manufacturing these things in serious volumes. Electric cars don't need oil changes. They don't have transmissions, spark plugs, exhaust systems, catalytic converters, or even engines for crying out loud. Every 10,000 miles, you need to check the brakes of an electric car, and maybe rotate the tires. That's it as far as required maintenance. You have no idea how many fewer moving parts there are in an electric car than a gas-powered vehicle. An electric car doesn't require repairs much more often than any other electric appliance. So yes, this is a direction in which we should be moving.

 

How about answering the questions?

[Orton's Arm]

How about answering the questions?

Your questions weren't helpful to moving this discussion forward. I'm not an expert on the construction of power lines. If you want a detailed plan for how this nation's electric grid could be upgraded to accommodate the demands of electric cars, you'll have to ask someone else. You seem to think that if I can't come up with a detailed plan to upgrade the grid, it can't be upgraded. I suppose that particular form of illogic allows you to dismiss both problems and proposed solutions without really thinking about either.

[Taro T]

Your questions weren't helpful to moving this discussion forward. I'm not an expert on the construction of power lines. If you want a detailed plan for how this nation's electric grid could be upgraded to accommodate the demands of electric cars, you'll have to ask someone else. You seem to think that if I can't come up with a detailed plan to upgrade the grid, it can't be upgraded. I suppose that particular form of illogic allows you to dismiss both problems and proposed solutions without really thinking about either.

How are questions dealing with the actual implementation of ideas not "helpful to moving this discussion forward"?

 

If you think you have a solution to a problem but absolutely no idea how to implement the solution nor how much the solution will cost, that implies directly that you don't know whether or not the solution is feasible nor what unintended consequences follow. In other words, there is no reason to believe it's a solution, it's merely throwing ideas out at a wall and seeing if any of them will stick.

 

There are pros and cons to maintaining current energy sourcing and the use of alternatives. Not being able and/or willing to discuss any of these is what prevents a discussion from moving forward.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go cold fusion!

What do you mean it doesn't really exist? People have spent a lot of money studying it, it must exist. I had a contractor in just the other day. I'm going to use it to heat my house.

[VRWC]

Looks like more and more people are coming out of the "Global Warming Closet". I predict in ten years that this "Global Warming" scam will be a foot note in a bad TV game show.

 

 

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...05-fc28f14da388

 

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=C...ims_documentary

 

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites...ndle/index.html

[GG]

Your questions weren't helpful to moving this discussion forward. I'm not an expert on the construction of power lines. If you want a detailed plan for how this nation's electric grid could be upgraded to accommodate the demands of electric cars, you'll have to ask someone else. You seem to think that if I can't come up with a detailed plan to upgrade the grid, it can't be upgraded. I suppose that particular form of illogic allows you to dismiss both problems and proposed solutions without really thinking about either.

 

You mean I should ask someone who knows what they're talking about?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Looks like more and more people are coming out of the "Global Warming Closet". I predict in ten years that this "Global Warming" scam will be a foot note in a bad TV game show.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...05-fc28f14da388

 

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=C...ims_documentary

 

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites...ndle/index.html

 

Excellent work!

[Bungee Jumper]

You mean I should ask someone who knows what they're talking about?

 

 

Or you can just check Wikipedia...

[Orton's Arm]

You mean I should ask someone who knows what they're talking about?

No, it means you should stop assuming it's impossible to expand the electrical grid unless you actually have some evidence with which to back up your feelings. In any case, if you actually did believe that expanding the electric grid would be so hard, shouldn't you rethink your enthusiasm for open borders? The tide of immigrants flooding across the border is putting enormous strain on our infrastructure in general, including the electric grid.

 

Suppose there's some limit to the rate at which we can expand our electric grid. Choice A involves using that limited expansion capability to meet the needs of electric vehicles. Choice B is ignore electric cars, keep the border open, and to dedicate new grid capacity to the unstopped flood of immigrants who will continue to absorb the U.S. into the Third World. I'm at a loss to understand your unbridled enthusiasm for Choice B, while being so turned off by Choice A.

[Ramius]

No, it means you should stop assuming it's impossible to expand the electrical grid unless you actually have some evidence with which to back up your feelings. In any case, if you actually did believe that expanding the electric grid would be so hard, shouldn't you rethink your enthusiasm for open borders? The tide of immigrants flooding across the border is putting enormous strain on our infrastructure in general, including the electric grid.

 

Suppose there's some limit to the rate at which we can expand our electric grid. Choice A involves using that limited expansion capability to meet the needs of electric vehicles. Choice B is ignore electric cars, keep the border open, and to dedicate new grid capacity to the unstopped flood of immigrants who will continue to absorb the U.S. into the Third World. I'm at a loss to understand your unbridled enthusiasm for Choice B, while being so turned off by Choice A.

 

Newsflash,. einstein: In science (something you arent overly fond of), when one is proposing a new idea, you do NOT simply state, "this is my arguement, prove it wrong" You must first PROVE your arguement feasible before you toss it around like gospel. Funny you should call for him to provide evidence, because you have yet to supply any of your own.

 

Until you can come up with a coherent method and/or idea of how your solution will work in the future, it holds about as much merit as kelly holcomb has SB rings. ZERO! GG doesnt have to prove your steaming pile of monkey crap idea wrong, becuse you have yet to show how it could possibly work in the first place.

[GG]

No, it means you should stop assuming it's impossible to expand the electrical grid unless you actually have some evidence with which to back up your feelings. In any case, if you actually did believe that expanding the electric grid would be so hard, shouldn't you rethink your enthusiasm for open borders? The tide of immigrants flooding across the border is putting enormous strain on our infrastructure in general, including the electric grid.

 

Suppose there's some limit to the rate at which we can expand our electric grid. Choice A involves using that limited expansion capability to meet the needs of electric vehicles. Choice B is ignore electric cars, keep the border open, and to dedicate new grid capacity to the unstopped flood of immigrants who will continue to absorb the U.S. into the Third World. I'm at a loss to understand your unbridled enthusiasm for Choice B, while being so turned off by Choice A.

 

Just want to make sure that I update the list of open questions:

 

Contestant search for America's Stupidest Woman©™ - check.

Doing the math for Tom - check.

Solving the energy crisis - check.