US Politics Mega-thread - Page 855

On February 06 2014 14:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


If you think an Oil based economy is a utopia then you'e in for a rude awakening.

On February 06 2014 14:51 zlefin wrote:
Those aren't the numbers i'm seeing daunt, what i'm seeing is a consensus of well documented science; with the dissenting voices largely being people blatantly attempting to misrepresent the truth for money.

Actually, there's plenty of evidence to provide a sound basis for policy; and your assertion of the policies leading to utter doom and gloom is plain wrong, so please stop making it.

On February 06 2014 15:11 Wegandi wrote:We're talking climate. It is not a philosophical exercise - it's an important distinction since you use it as a crux of your argument. Who cares if figuratively it is 'man made' or not. Does it matter if CO2 levels are as they are because of Volcanism, or because of Industrial Factories? After-all, we're talking conclusions based off variable data-points, no? In other words, what I am getting at is you can't claim a state of climate that is natural, and then call other states unnatural, because there is no such base line of 'natural'. The Earth has been all over the place in its climatological history. I'm pointing out your naturalistic fallacy. Anyways, I still find all this humorous.

On February 06 2014 14:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


If you think an Oil based economy is a utopia then you'e in for a rude awakening.

On February 06 2014 15:31 Sub40APM wrote:

xDaunt is late 20s, early 30s guy so by the time oil runs out he'll be long and safely dead.

On February 06 2014 15:30 xDaunt wrote:
Wake me up when scientists invent an energy source that effectively replaces fossil fuels. In case you haven't noticed, it doesn't exist yet.

On February 06 2014 16:18 oneofthem wrote:
renewables that are not always online has a lot of problem becoming the sole provider though, since they are not always online and can't reliably deliver peak power. need more nuclear

On February 06 2014 16:34 Nyxisto wrote:


Except that this is factually untrue. Your reasoning works like this "Uhh windmills, that sounds so unstable and hippie like, that can't be good, but nuclear energy , well that sounds so advanced, that has to be good!"

Some facts about nuclear energy: Fuel will only be price stable for a few more decades as demand will outgrow the production rate. The governments in most countries heavily subsidize nuclear energy. Nuclear energy can be pretty dangerous and the public has to pay for the dispose of nuclear waste. Nuclear energy is actually crazy expensive.

And as long as renewable energies are diversified enough there isn't anything unstable about it. The suns not always shining, but you also have on- and offshore wind power, geothermal energy and tidal power plants. With some conventional backup and sufficient storage capability it's perfectly fine.

On February 06 2014 14:35 Wegandi wrote:


Or perhaps you're selectively biased based on the conclusions of said 'XYZ' science/scientist. How you can claim me calling weather more factual to be modeled via Chaos Theory (e.g. unpredictable) unscientific or ignorant in science, is ballsy, considering Chaos Theory is nothing, but science, and is a much better indicator of Weather than the non-sense hubris of wrong model after wrong model. There are too many variables, too many causal relationships, too many unknowns to ever come to a decisive conclusion of AGW let alone weather patterns five minutes from now. There's a reason meteorologists don't stake their lives on their claims - they know they're estimates, probabilities at best. They can't say for sure, if it's going to rain tomorrow...so they'll give you a 30% chance. Now, we expect 'climatologists' to tell you with certainty what the weather patterns and outcomes will be in XYZ years with XYZ variables? Don't make me laugh.

It's hubris and arrogance to think otherwise. It's ok to say, we can't know, or I don't know, or it's unknowable. I bet you're going to tell me Chaos Theory is all BS and anti-scientific now....

On February 06 2014 12:03 Introvert wrote:


Don't make an absurd comparison. I'm allowed to to doubt people, especially with so much $$$ on the line. You think oil would lie to you, but the Greenies would not? pls.

Besides, I think I've been rather fair. I've asked for a simple set of numbers, and no one can provide them because apparently they are unable to see the distinction I am making.


I read them, and some of them said that temperatures were reaching new extremes, and some made a future prediction. They then tired to tie it in with weather. Still others tried to link particular events to Climate Change, by running more of their oh so reliable models.

Point is, we've had fewer actual events (so far as we can tell due to the inability to gather sufficient data) of extreme weather, At most, you can argue it makes what events do occur worse. But that's still hard to maintain due to the lack of extreme weather, at least here in the US.

I just hit something in Google and follwed a few links for this: http://www.gm.univ-montp2.fr/spip/IMG/pdf/Sabatier_QSRv2-3-1.pdf

I can find a study for anything. But cold hard data says these events are NOT increasing in frequency.

On February 06 2014 15:30 xDaunt wrote:


Wake me up when scientists invent an energy source that effectively replaces fossil fuels. In case you haven't noticed, it doesn't exist yet.



The only thing that's well-documented about the science is how much flux it has been in over the past fifty years. You're crazy if you think that it's all been figured out, or even sufficiently figured out to justify dramatic policy.

And please explain to me why it is wrong to say that the elimination of carbon emissions would lead to economic "doom and gloom?" Do you have any sense whatsoever of what that actually means?


Let's also not forget to point out that underlying all of this is a presumption that mankind can actually control global climate change by adjusting its carbon emissions. Hilarious.

On February 06 2014 20:15 Danglars wrote:
If the bloviators, I mean environmentalists, would invest in some of the next generation nuclear power options, they'd have much more of a leg to stand on. Enough thorium fuel for hundreds of years, nuclear waste at 1/100 of the mass previously expended. Dams, solar, geothermal, wind suffer from many problems, and one is definitely storing it for future use. The others include max power (energy delivered per unit time) application, diffuse energy can't be delivered in mass in the time-frame it's needed.

The fact that emphasis is given to wind and solar really hurts their cause. It's a ton of fluff. Learning stopped once they discovered fossil fuels are burnt then gone. I've talked to them (well, the ones not already embracing the MSRs LFTRs) and it's the same old--Will take a decade to implement, global warming is occurring all this time, lingering safety willies. If we'd started waking up ten years ago, we'd already have dozens of coal power plants replaced and offline. Fear is a powerful motivator and it persists; scientific advancement hasn't conquered as we rely on ancient designs.

On February 06 2014 20:19 Acrofales wrote:

I don't oppose nuclear, and the large-scale deployment of nuclear reactors is actually happening as we speak. It just takes a long time to build.

Oh, it is also being spearheaded by the Russians, who aren't as paranoid about selling nuclear technology all over the world.

On February 06 2014 21:07 Danglars wrote:
On a global scale, perhaps yes. In the US scene, woefully inadequate deployment and research.

On February 07 2014 02:04 Wolfstan wrote:
I agree, the point is exactly one of my problems with the GOP, constant criticism of Dem initiatives while offering no policy compromise of their own. Completely devoid of ideas.

On February 07 2014 02:15 xDaunt wrote:

The GOP offers plenty of ideas on energy policy. The problem is that the Democrats won't consider anything that isn't solar or wind.