Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NinjaBoot]

Global warming denial?  You trollin' bro?

Considering there is no 100% absolute proof by scientists to prove one way or the other (there wouldn't be any controversy if there is), how can you say this is taking place? 

Lets not forget that scientists can't even all agree on what is actually changing.  First it was Global warming, the ice caps are melting, then it was Global Dimming,  then it was the whole doom and gloom prediction of the next Ice Age.   What is it now?  Oh, scientists have changed it to Climate Change, essentially turning their scientific argument into such a broad argument that they are diluting their facts to the point of merely explaining nothing!

Small wonder that the current Administration champions this sort of view.  Small wonder that Solynda, who's owner just happened to be an Obama campaign donor, got $535 million loan with no strings attached and a dismissal of the vetting process that essentially said "this company will fail!".  It must be strange that Al Gore happened to procure a loan for a car company that he owns a significant holding in, from the same administration, to produce cars in Finland?  Let us also remember that these cars are targeted for people who can afford the $89,000 price tag.  Oh, these cars will be electric? 

Yes, we must transition to Electric cars and Green Energy, which strangely enough, it owned and operated by the same people who happen to be pushing this same agenda?  Ack, conspiracy!

Yes, humans do have an impact on the climate, but how much?  Are we absolutely guaranteed to completely overhaul global warming/climate change/global dimming issue if we do everything that they say we must have to?  No. 

And here is why: "For us to come close to achieving that perfect balance between man and nature, we are going to literally have to condemn BILLIONS of people to death.  This is through lack of essential services, such as food, water, heating, and medical aid, police services, etc.  Turn off millions of power plants around the globe, shut down every single highway and wreck every single car, get rid of every single ship at sea, eliminate heating and plumbing for every single house and home and your still left with too many people trying to start fires with logs and shit to keep themselves warm, or turning into farmers to cultivate the land to feed themselves."

But then I suppose the opposite end of this spectrum would be to rape the earth and destroy it for everybody else in the future! 

'Foreign oil' is a bit of a canard. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-16/us-oil-boom/52053236/1
Read the link, it's interesting. In summary:
A. We export about the same level of oil as we import (the article is about how we exported more than we imported last year).
B. Gas prices are linked to the global trade value, so despite the net exporting, gas prices remain high.

As for the results of fracking, from a neutral point of view: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4275

Really?  You mean by taking your own energy production into your hands, eliminating the need in the future to rely on oil imports, and thus not subjecting yourself to buying from a highly volatile market place, it is an unfounded belief? 

"American consumers benefit little from the U.S. oil boomlet, because their fuel prices depend heavily on a global oil market that remains tight and has probably already peaked in production"  (from the article)

So my statement still holds true, produce your own energy, get off importing oil, and American consumers will benefit through cheaper energy bills and everything else that flows from it. 

http://www.esa.doc.gov/Blog/2011/03/09/oil-prices-and-trade-deficit

"Last year, the petroleum-related trade deficit totaled $265 billion and accounted for 42 percent of our total deficit in goods."

That means you won't be spending hundreds of billions on importing oil.  All of this money can be either use to pay down the debt or fund social programs! 

[NinjaBoot]

Ok, so if fracking so dangerous that we can never use it as a means to get resources from the earth.

And if drilling for oil and oil production is so harming to the environment.

Then what alternatives are you offering that will provide cheap and reliable power to millions of people in the United States? 

[mainiac]

Global warming denial?  You trollin' bro?

Considering there is no 100% absolute proof by scientists to prove one way or the other (there wouldn't be any controversy if there is), how can you say this is taking place? 

Nothing is certain in science.  However there is very, very strong consensus on this.

Then what alternatives are you offering that will provide cheap and reliable power to millions of people in the United States? 

Solar and wind power have reached the point of being economically viable and solar in particular gets cheaper every year.  They are cheaper then new nuclear capacity and cheaper then fossil fuels when you account for the destructive effects of fossil fuels. We should be trying to install as much capacity of solar and wind as we can produce every year.  With a modestly increasing capacity year over year this would allow us to phase out all fossil fuels over the course of a few decades.  Nuclear would be phased out as old plants become expensive to maintain and few new plants are built to replace them (because they are more expensive then wind and solar).

Nothing I'm saying is anywhere near radical.  And back in 2008 it was standard republican party policy that we needed a carbon tax to jumpstart exactly the transition I'm talking about.  Except republicans liked nuclear more then me (to be fair it was more viable in 2008).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Considering there is no 100% absolute proof by scientists to prove one way or the other (there wouldn't be any controversy if there is), how can you say this is taking place?

There is no such thing as absolute proof in anything. Even the basic laws of the universe (thermodynamics, fundamental forces, etc.) have unknowns left that could completely change how they are understood.

Lets not forget that scientists can't even all agree on what is actually changing.  First it was Global warming, the ice caps are melting, then it was Global Dimming,  then it was the whole doom and gloom prediction of the next Ice Age.   What is it now?  Oh, scientists have changed it to Climate Change, essentially turning their scientific argument into such a broad argument that they are diluting their facts to the point of merely explaining nothing!

Science evolves as time goes on and we learn more, so you shouldn't be that surprised when we have to revise old theories because of new data. Earth, as you may have noticed, is a sphere. The atmosphere clings to the outside of this sphere, and heat won't distribute evenly across it. As we change the global climate, some areas will become cold and others will become hot as the heat distribution spirals out of control.

Small wonder that Solynda, who's owner just happened to be an Obama campaign donor, got $535 million loan with no strings attached and a dismissal of the vetting process that essentially said "this company will fail!".

Solynada made mistakes and fell apart. It happens, and it isn't evidence of some massive conspiracy to do....whatever it is you think they're trying to do.

Yes, we must transition to Electric cars and Green Energy, which strangely enough, it owned and operated by the same people who happen to be pushing this same agenda?  Ack, conspiracy!

So there's some self-interest involved. Big deal. Humans are kind of known for trying to profit off of everything we do, but that doesn't mean it's actually a scam.

And here is why: "For us to come close to achieving that perfect balance between man and nature, we are going to literally have to condemn BILLIONS of people to death.  This is through lack of essential services, such as food, water, heating, and medical aid, police services, etc.  Turn off millions of power plants around the globe, shut down every single highway and wreck every single car, get rid of every single ship at sea, eliminate heating and plumbing for every single house and home and your still left with too many people trying to start fires with logs and shit to keep themselves warm, or turning into farmers to cultivate the land to feed themselves."

What in the actual fuck are you going on about here? To achieve a sustainable balance between human civilization and Earth's environment does not require destroying human civilization, nor does it require killing anyone. Technology will give us better and less harmful ways to live on this planet, as it always has.

[Leafsnail]

I think that would be what you call strawman to the max.  "You will kill BILLIONS of people" is generally an indicator.

[chaoticag]

Lets not forget that scientists can't even all agree on what is actually changing.  First it was Global warming, the ice caps are melting, then it was Global Dimming,  then it was the whole doom and gloom prediction of the next Ice Age.   What is it now?  Oh, scientists have changed it to Climate Change, essentially turning their scientific argument into such a broad argument that they are diluting their facts to the point of merely explaining nothing!

Actually, it's been called climate change for a long time now.
Here are a bunch of scholarly articles about the subject of climate change... between the years 1993 and 1996
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=climate+change&num=10&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=1993&as_yhi=1996&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdtf=&as_sdts=5&btnG=Search+Scholar&hl=en

I'd go back further if google would let me.

[NinjaBoot]

Global warming denial?  You trollin' bro?

Considering there is no 100% absolute proof by scientists to prove one way or the other (there wouldn't be any controversy if there is), how can you say this is taking place? 

Nothing is certain in science.  However there is very, very strong consensus on this.

Then how can you argue that implementing economic reforms based on this uncertain science is good for America?  The changes these reforms are specifically targeting have literally no discernible outcome or effect on the overall issue. 

Seriously, even if you turn every single power plant into an alternative energy source that produces ZERO pollution, you have:

- Vehicles for Transportation, whether cars, boats, trains, or airplanes. 

- Whatever is used to heat the billions of homes around the world so people don't freeze to death.

- Mass farming operations

And so on.  Green policies are sort-sighted and lacking true backbone to make a difference.  All they're doing is pandering to a group of people who want to feel good about doing something noble.  It requires absolutely no sacrifice from them yet it is imposing a sacrifice on millions of other people through increased electricity rates and gas prices. 

Then what alternatives are you offering that will provide cheap and reliable power to millions of people in the United States? 

Solar and wind power have reached the point of being economically viable and solar in particular gets cheaper every year.  They are cheaper then new nuclear capacity and cheaper then fossil fuels when you account for the destructive effects of fossil fuels. We should be trying to install as much capacity of solar and wind as we can produce every year.  With a modestly increasing capacity year over year this would allow us to phase out all fossil fuels over the course of a few decades.  Nuclear would be phased out as old plants become expensive to maintain and few new plants are built to replace them (because they are more expensive then wind and solar).

The main issue with 3rd party energy, such as solar power and wind power, is that it is highly unreliable as a primary power source.  Hope you have backup energy sources in case of those days when its an overcast, or highly cloudy.. What about wind power?  Hope its always windy where you place them. 

Also, all those fancy rare metals needed to actually build the solar panels?  Well, if your going to mandate the construction of enough of these bad boys to actually replace oil and gas as the primary source of energy, well... hope you don't mind strip-mining wherever they are located.  And most likely by that time they won't be cheap either.

Nothing I'm saying is anywhere near radical.  And back in 2008 it was standard republican party policy that we needed a carbon tax to jumpstart exactly the transition I'm talking about.  Except republicans liked nuclear more then me (to be fair it was more viable in 2008).

"Carbon Tax" heh.  Nifty way of redistributing the wealth I suppose. 

[Frumple]

Green policies are sort-sighted

Someone else'll tear the rest of it apart -- I just want to chime in and say this is possibly both the most hilarious and most hilariously wrong statement you've yet to make of this forum. If nothing else, you got a chuckle, so if that's what you're after, well, congrats, I guess.

[Blargityblarg]

'This proposed solution is not perfect in every way, therefore it is useless.'

[NinjaBoot]

Considering there is no 100% absolute proof by scientists to prove one way or the other (there wouldn't be any controversy if there is), how can you say this is taking place?

There is no such thing as absolute proof in anything. Even the basic laws of the universe (thermodynamics, fundamental forces, etc.) have unknowns left that could completely change how they are understood.

So who is to say what is happening is something that happens naturally regardless of what we do? 

Lets not forget that scientists can't even all agree on what is actually changing.  First it was Global warming, the ice caps are melting, then it was Global Dimming,  then it was the whole doom and gloom prediction of the next Ice Age.   What is it now?  Oh, scientists have changed it to Climate Change, essentially turning their scientific argument into such a broad argument that they are diluting their facts to the point of merely explaining nothing!

Science evolves as time goes on and we learn more, so you shouldn't be that surprised when we have to revise old theories because of new data. Earth, as you may have noticed, is a sphere. The atmosphere clings to the outside of this sphere, and heat won't distribute evenly across it. As we change the global climate, some areas will become cold and others will become hot as the heat distribution spirals out of control.

Agreed! 

Small wonder that Solynda, who's owner just happened to be an Obama campaign donor, got $535 million loan with no strings attached and a dismissal of the vetting process that essentially said "this company will fail!".

Solynada made mistakes and fell apart. It happens, and it isn't evidence of some massive conspiracy to do....whatever it is you think they're trying to do.

Solyndra did not make any mistakes, no.  A company only does what is best for the company.  The complete and utter failure in this regard was the current Administration disregarding all the red flags and showed up during the vetting process.  This is not a conspiracy, it is a clear indication of partisan politics influencing decisions. 

Yes, we must transition to Electric cars and Green Energy, which strangely enough, it owned and operated by the same people who happen to be pushing this same agenda?  Ack, conspiracy!

So there's some self-interest involved. Big deal. Humans are kind of known for trying to profit off of everything we do, but that doesn't mean it's actually a scam.

So if government plays favorites with green energy, it is OK because it is for the environment and that is good for the earth.  But if the government plays favorites with big oil, then it is NOT OK because it harms the environment and is not good for the earth?

Government playing favorites with green energy is just human nature, and is an everyday fact of life(?).  Government playing favorites with big oil is a conspiracy being bankrolled by corporate interests? 

And here is why: "For us to come close to achieving that perfect balance between man and nature, we are going to literally have to condemn BILLIONS of people to death.  This is through lack of essential services, such as food, water, heating, and medical aid, police services, etc.  Turn off millions of power plants around the globe, shut down every single highway and wreck every single car, get rid of every single ship at sea, eliminate heating and plumbing for every single house and home and your still left with too many people trying to start fires with logs and shit to keep themselves warm, or turning into farmers to cultivate the land to feed themselves."

What in the actual fuck are you going on about here? To achieve a sustainable balance between human civilization and Earth's environment does not require destroying human civilization, nor does it require killing anyone. Technology will give us better and less harmful ways to live on this planet, as it always has.

[/quote]

So then why are current regulations aimed at driving out Oil and Gas producers?  Why are there so many regulations in place that punish companies who produce co2 emissions?  Why is there a Carbon Tax?  It is one thing to talk about it and debate it, it is another to actually enact these ideals as legislation that end up harming businesses and people. 

Take California for example.  Leftist wet-dream for well over 30 years.  Highest number of millionaires in the United States.  And its government is broke.  The budget crisis they created through their policies over the past 30 years has forced them to grovel to the federal government for assistance in meeting their basic budget.  They have had to raise taxes and cut essential services in a lot of places, and yet.. they want to export those same ideals that tanked California onto America? 

[NinjaBoot]

Green policies are sort-sighted

Someone else'll tear the rest of it apart -- I just want to chime in and say this is possibly both the most hilarious and most hilariously wrong statement you've yet to make of this forum. If nothing else, you got a chuckle, so if that's what you're after, well, congrats, I guess.

"Someone else"?  Why not you?

Hey, I know its hilarious.  I mean, it is pretty hilarious when people decide to forgo the need to use the resources they currently have at their disposal and force down the throats of people a technology that has never been implemented on such a wide-scale anywhere. 

"Democracy?  Who needs that!  We know what is the best for everyone and we'll act like it!"  Church of Environmentalism, heh. 

[NinjaBoot]

I believe in climate change, although I believe it is also being caused by natural processes.
basically, natural, but we aren't doing it any help.

Agreed!

[Luke_Prowler]

Yeah, let's totally burn through Earth's resources without restraint or forethougth, we'd still have 7 other planets left

[NinjaBoot]

Yeah, let's totally burn through Earth's resources without restraint or forethougth, we'd still have 7 other planets left

As I have stated before, even if America turns into the greenest piece of national park this side of whatever, it is not going to make a difference.  Why?  Oh, well.. THE WORLD?  Man, good luck convincing:  China, Russia, Canada, Mexico, all of South America, all of Africa, Europe, Japan, Australia, etc etc etc..

I mean, is it really that hard to understand the need to actually use the resources you have available to be able to provide a better standard of living for your people so your actually able to transition into alternative energy sources without a huge amount of disruption? 

[NinjaBoot]

'This proposed solution is not perfect in every way, therefore it is useless.'

Under the assumption the solution will fix the problem?

Are you guys all so certain that a complete move to alternative energy sources is actually going to make ANY difference?  Why?  Because you say so?