Print

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

[NinjaBoot]

fairly sure this whole thread is one giant coil of trollbait

Just because I have a view that I am willing to argue on and do my best to back up, doesn't make me a troll.

If you feel my views are too extreme for you, and feel that I am indeed a troll, then maybe you shouldn't post?  Trolls hate it when people don't post on their threads.

[Reelya]

The refutation of the later point is simply:  Drill for oil around the United States and you won't have to import oil from foreign countries.  Simple, but hard to execute (BP Oil anyone?).

Dude, it's probably been said, but i just have to add that - the f-ing GULF OF MEXICO **IS** drilling for oil around the United States. It was in US territorial waters.

And it's abundantly clear that this spill - in US territorial waters - DID massively damage the environment of the USA :-

" located in the Mississippi Canyon Block 252 of the Gulf of Mexico in the United States exclusive economic zone about 41 miles (66 km) off the Louisiana coast."

It's the direct result of the local oil-drilling you're so fond of. That area is completely managed by the US Government.

[NinjaBoot]

The refutation of the later point is simply:  Drill for oil around the United States and you won't have to import oil from foreign countries.  Simple, but hard to execute (BP Oil anyone?).

Dude, it's probably been said, but i just have to add that - the f-ing GULF OF MEXICO **IS** drilling for oil around the United States. It was in US territorial waters.

Of course, this is why I mentioned BP Oil.

They US administration is apparently eyeballing an eventual return, but ever since the BP Oil disaster, there has been nothing (Obama imposed a moratorium on deep water drilling for about 6 months). 

Cuba decided to move in after the US pulled out, and have plans for 5 rigs in the Gulf.  How this conflicts with US drilling remains to be seen, but it certainly can't be good a country that has nowhere near the standards and controls of the US is now going to be drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? 

[Reelya]

Cuba isn't likely to have management disregarding technicians warnings because they're worried about getting their christmas bonus check. That is often the issue when management ignores or over-rides the technical people.

[Reelya]

So environmentalists are bought and paid for.  But industry spokespeople they're just doing it for the public interest.   

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2012/02/16/ut-austin-study-says-fracking-hasnt.html

Whoever UT Austin is, he or she must obviously be bought and paid for by industry spokepeople! 

I'll help you with this one:  They were obviously pressured by the higher ups in the University to produce this slanted piece of garbage to pander to the big-oil crowd and also ensure they get their donation money!?

But hey, for the sake of argument lets leave out the issues regarding the environmental impact of fracking for gas, since we cannot agree upon a neutral 3rd party source that we both accept as unbiased.  That basically leaves us with: why not?  Its going to provide cheaper fuel for our residents while contributing money to the government coffers.  BONUS!

First, you're pretty naive if you think that universities are immune to cash from big business. Especially in the states, many universities get a lot of funding from private partnerships.

Second, that's from "Houston Business Journal". I'm sure they're totally un-biased on big oil companies vs environment (NOT!!). Texas economy and politics is "owned" by big oil corporations. Those are likely their bitches.

Third, they fully admit IN YOUR OWN ARTICLE that the environmental damage WAS caused by drilling, just not "fracking". So it's a moot point, the environmental damage is real, nobody's claiming it's any less severe than environmentalists claim, just debating the specific oil-drilling practice that's caused the damage.

The argument about fracking or not fracking is therefore a red-herring. Oil-drilling operations caused the noted damage.

UT Austin study says fracking hasn’t contaminated groundwater

The hydraulic fracturing of shale formations to develop natural gas has no direct connection to groundwater contamination, according to a study released Feb. 16 by the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin    .
The study reported that many problems blamed on hydraulic fracturing are related to processes common to all oil and gas drilling operations, such as casing failures or poor cement jobs.

Right, so the problems DID happen and the groundwater IS contaminated, but the answer is "well that's just 'common to all oil and gas drilling operations' ".

That .... makes it so much better. It also makes the headline FUCKING MISLEADING by implying the sites with fracking are not contaminated, when the body of the article clearly states that they are.

[NinjaBoot]

If the US took a strongly pro-green energy stance then the rest of the world would follow because we'd be making those technologies cheaper and thus more attractive to them.  In fact that is exactly what happened with solar energy.  PV solar cells were developed by an American company and the technology was nursed by NASA for use in the space program.  The technology matured in the 70s and 80s thanks to US government support and synergy with the US microchip industry.  Then when it finally comes to maturity in the past decade who makes us of it?  The Europeans and Chinese of course.  50 years of American ingenuity, support and investment and we just shrug our shoulders when it comes time to actually make use of all that hard work.

They might not be too enthusiastic about them anymore!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8770937/Wind-farm-paid-1.2-million-to-produce-no-electricity.html

"In total, 11 wind farms were closed down last week, receiving a total of £2.6 million. The money - detailed in calculations provided by National Grid - will be added on to household bills and paid for by consumers."

China?  Yeah, they're stopping subsidizing their wind farms.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/07/us-china-windpower-idUSTRE7561B920110607

Why is that?  Well, from what I have read, it is because they cause the electrical system to overload.  This is also ontop of having to actually pay them money to not operate. 

So, Windpower is unreliable (overloading the electrical grid), and expensive (all those wind farms being paid out to not product energy is expensive!). 

The same deal with solar power.  Unreliable and expensive. 

Now I know you will say to me that it is cheaper and affordable.  Why is that?  Federal subsidies.  If they didn't have such a huge investment of cash from the government, then their rates would be alot more expensive than traditional means.  If they didn't have government helping them out, then they wouldn't even come close to advertising what they claim. 

If green energy can provide a cheaper and more reliable form of energy without the help of government (re: taxpayers), then I would have absolutely no problem with it.  However, that is far from the case. 

[jester]

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2012/02/16/ut-austin-study-says-fracking-hasnt.html

For those who havent noticed, (and it has actually been pointed out already in this thread), the top related story to this one is one on how UT Austin received 3.9 mil in funding from Shell oil, for 'sponsored research'  (such as saying that fracking isnt dangerous to watertables).  Looking at this study id say it was paid for to make it difficult for people to put legal claims against the fracking companies rather than any actual scientific/environmental merit.

[Reelya]

"Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming."

Right, i'm not sure you're comprehending what this quote is about...it's people being "silenced" for advocating global warming.

That pressure comes through universities hierarchies, politics and businesses scientists work for, who have a shared interest in the "status quo" and "hushing up" climate change.

It's a statement of the exact opposite of what your stance seems to be so i'm thinking maybe you're not reading that right.
They're pressured from all sides for SAYING global warming is man-made.

----

Thanks Jester, i had a quick look but didn't search hard for info on UT Austin. One thing i learnt from anti-climate groups is that they ALWAYS got oil money. No exceptions. It's the Rule #34 of climate-deniers.

Here's a good one :-

http://heartland.org/

They're climate deniers, but i've read pro-tobacco articles (they said tobacco was 99% risk-free and shouldn't be taxed or get warning labels, but if you did get sick you shouldn't be able to sue because you "knew the risks").

So, here's the quintesential soul of the anti-climate lobby. They're guys who used to lobby for big tobacco and for companies which emit toxic substances into waterways, and fight against asbestos law-suits.

Read their classic article "common sense environmentalism" :-

http://heartland.org/policy-documents/heartlands-environment-issue-suite?artId=10488

"Over the years, environmental groups have launched campaigns against asbestos, dioxin, lead, mercury, pesticides, PCBs, chlorine, and endocrine disrupters. In every case, later research found the threats had been vastly exaggerated, and that public policies were adopted that cost far more than any benefits they created."

Yes, cancers from asbestos and dioxins (multi-generational birth defects) are hardly a concern. Why did they even ban asbestos?

[NinjaBoot]

So environmentalists are bought and paid for.  But industry spokespeople they're just doing it for the public interest.   

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2012/02/16/ut-austin-study-says-fracking-hasnt.html

Whoever UT Austin is, he or she must obviously be bought and paid for by industry spokepeople! 

I'll help you with this one:  They were obviously pressured by the higher ups in the University to produce this slanted piece of garbage to pander to the big-oil crowd and also ensure they get their donation money!?

But hey, for the sake of argument lets leave out the issues regarding the environmental impact of fracking for gas, since we cannot agree upon a neutral 3rd party source that we both accept as unbiased.  That basically leaves us with: why not?  Its going to provide cheaper fuel for our residents while contributing money to the government coffers.  BONUS!

First, you're pretty naive if you think that universities are immune to cash from big business. Especially in the states, many universities get a lot of funding from private partnerships.

I thought we moved on from this!  Gah!  U NO ARGUE WITH ME! (just kidding )

But yeah, I was taking a rather sarcastic tone in that regards.  The whole point of the exercise was to point out that the exact same thing can be said about scientists being pressured by their corporate interests or government officials to produce a biased report. 

Which essentially led me to..

"But hey, for the sake of argument lets leave out the issues regarding the environmental impact of fracking for gas, since we cannot agree upon a neutral 3rd party source that we both accept as unbiased."

But I highly doubt that will happen, so..

"That basically leaves us with: why not?  Its going to provide cheaper fuel for our residents while contributing money to the government coffers.  BONUS!"

Second, that's from "Houston Business Journal". I'm sure they're totally un-biased on big oil companies vs environment (NOT!!). Texas economy and politics is "owned" by big oil corporations. Those are likely their bitches.

Third, they fully admit IN YOUR OWN ARTICLE that the environmental damage WAS caused by drilling, just not "fracking". So it's a moot point, the environmental damage is real, nobody's claiming it's any less severe than environmentalists claim, just debating the specific oil-drilling practice that's caused the damage.

I specifically stated it was in regards to fracking, not standard drilling techniques. 

The argument about fracking or not fracking is therefore a red-herring. Oil-drilling operations caused the noted damage.

And, what?  Is strip-mining the landscape for rare metals a better alternative?   

UT Austin study says fracking hasn’t contaminated groundwater

The hydraulic fracturing of shale formations to develop natural gas has no direct connection to groundwater contamination, according to a study released Feb. 16 by the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin    .
The study reported that many problems blamed on hydraulic fracturing are related to processes common to all oil and gas drilling operations, such as casing failures or poor cement jobs.

Right, so the problems DID happen and the groundwater IS contaminated, but the answer is "well that's just 'common to all oil and gas drilling operations' ".

That .... makes it so much better. It also makes the headline FUCKING MISLEADING by implying the sites with fracking are not contaminated, when the body of the article clearly states that they are.

Hey, you got me there!

Ok, so fracking is dangerous.  Lets not use that to get resources from shale or any sort of hard-rock formations!  Lets, uh.. continue to drill off-shore for oil!?  No, I suppose that is out too, since it is way more dangerous than fracking.  Infact let us forbid any and all drilling for natural gas and oil, since fracking is the safest method compared to the older methods. 

What does that leave us with?

Well, buying and importing all of your oil and gas from foreign countries, thus eating up a large portion of your budget.  Better not piss off those countries we buy our oil from then, otherwise they might raise the price or place an embargo on us. 

Transition entirely to green energy?  Ah, yes, this is what you want I suppose. 

Alright, so if that is the case. 

Be prepared to fork out a metric-ton of money for whatever rare metals are left (they wouldn't be called rare metals if they weren't rare!), since they will automatically skyrocket in price when they see that the US is going to entirely become green energy. 

Hope you have the technology to store the vast amounts of energy created by Wind Turbines (and solar panels), store them for an indeterminate amount of time, then dispense them in an orderly manner as not to overload the electrical grids (Read the UK link I posted in regards to Wind Turbines).  In regards to both, hope the weather doesn't obscure the clouds for a long time, or act all nasty and cause them to overload and blow up from spinning too fast!  Oh yeah, and get used to brownouts as well!

If you want hydro, then be prepared to give up huge amounts of land that is needed to create the reservoirs needed to keep these beasts going.  Less land around?  The price of houses just went up!

All those by-products that require oil?  They all just went up in price!  Driving a car?  Only if is an electric, and only if it is charged!  The price of heating your homes?  Skyrocketing! 

Well, infact, everything will be higher in price.  Companies don't pay huge amounts of energy bills to produce nothing you know.  This either means they close the gap created by higher prices in energy by one of two things: 1) Firing people to get salary costs in-line with cost projections.  2)  Increasing the price of goods accordingly.

And it will most likely be both because if you are buying your oil and gas 100% from foreign markets, it is going to be ludicrously expensive. 

Did I mention the cost of living will also go up too?  So if your struggling to make ends meet, you are pretty much toast.  All those people who require government assistance for basic living?  Be prepared to see more people flood those programs and also increase in price individually in-line with the increase in cost of living. 

If you are currently in school, you better become religious and pray that the job market will be able to give you something.  The already job-less and those who are going to be without a job fairly soon are going to be competing with green as grass recruits fresh out of school.  Sad fact is, companies like experience more than academic accolades for the majority of businesses out there (sans lawyers, doctors, police, military, scientists and other hard technical skills and trade-skills (plumbers, electricians, etc)).

And no, the assumption that if America goes 100% green-tech will drive down the cost of green-tech in general, fails to take into consideration that America is competing in a global economy.  But then again, the assumption that going 100% green-tech will drive down the price of green-tech in general fails to even mention the fact that the current price of green-tech is expensive. 

And yes, when an entire industry is receiving government money to produce a product that is "cheaper", does not make it cheaper because you are diverting taxpayer money from essential services (like medicare) into corporations who are making more money by selling you the service funded by taxpayers!   

[Reelya]

Way, to go troll, with all the straw men in there. I never said any of those things your labelling my argument with i just brought you up with the hypocrisy of the one particular article you linked, now you're bringing random shit into the game.

But yeah, I was taking a rather sarcastic tone in that regards.  The whole point of the exercise was to point out that the exact same thing can be said about scientists being pressured by their corporate interests or government officials to produce a biased report. 

Seriously you're taking this big business is anti-environment protection and government are pro-environment line? both side are "anti" if anything, they're allies. Though, there are people in both business and government who are "pro", you just see it more from "government" because you have RULES in government about processes and transparency and public input (at least superficially) while corporations are basically 100% top-down so you keep your mouth or you get fired.

Governments have been trying to resist the "global warming" thing since the early 1980's but despite the best efforts of "establishment" scientists and government panels, it's crept through. The only "lobbyists" have been outsiders.

[NinjaBoot]

Way, to go troll, with all the straw men in there. I never said any of those things your labelling my argument with i just brought you up with the hypocrisy of the one particular article you linked, now you're bringing random shit into the game.

How did you show my hypocrisy? 

"But yeah, I was taking a rather sarcastic tone in that regards.  The whole point of the exercise was to point out that the exact same thing can be said about scientists being pressured by their corporate interests or government officials to produce a biased report."

And yes, companies who are in the business of green-energy are doing the exact same thing as those in the oil industry.  But whatever, since its for the cause it must obviously be right? 

I then went into a rant about what ultimately you want to do (go 100% green energy), and its rather unintended effects.

Did I assume too much?  Most likely, but then what are you arguing for? 

[Reelya]

"i just brought you up with the hypocrisy of the one particular article you linked"

you really have a language issue don't you. Do i need to rephrase this?

I pointed out to you that the article you linked smacked of hypocrisy. How is that saying "you" are hypocritical? Are you trying to derail again?

Now you're going back to the straw-man style of arguing, since i never advocated any fucking "cause" or made any claim about other sources.


Someone picking apart a particular quote you made or article you linked does NOT require them to provide you with some "manifesto" to save the world to justify them criticizing your sources.

As for strip-mining the earth for rare metals, there are MANY ways to store energy which do not require that.

e.g. Thermal Solar Power generators :-

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/earth/15sola.html

Or, alternatively, storing solar energy by splitting water to make hydrogen :-

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10002704-54.html

[NinjaBoot]

Way, to go troll, with all the straw men in there. I never said any of those things your labelling my argument with i just brought you up with the hypocrisy of the one particular article you linked, now you're bringing random shit into the game.

But yeah, I was taking a rather sarcastic tone in that regards.  The whole point of the exercise was to point out that the exact same thing can be said about scientists being pressured by their corporate interests or government officials to produce a biased report. 

Seriously you're taking this big business is anti-environment protection and government are pro-environment line? both side are "anti" if anything, they're allies.

Wait, what?  Maybe you should, uh.. brush up on the current administration and their stance on green energy (hint, they're for).  Hell, read up on the Carbon Tax in America. 

Though, there are people in both business and government who are "pro", you just see it more from "government" because you have RULES in government about processes and transparency and public input (at least superficially) while corporations are basically 100% top-down so you keep your mouth or you get fired.

Really?

You mean the same Administration that, uh.. gave Solyndra (produced solar panels) a $535 million loan to an Obama donor, disregarding all the red-flags that popped up during the vetting process? 

The same Administration who is now stone-walling any congressional investigation into this whole affair?  Nah, couldn't be.

What about the whole issue regarding "Fast and Furious" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal)?  Why isn't the administration disclosing what happened, while Eric Holder (appointed by Obama to the post of Attorney General) continues to play stupid? 

What about the PPACA, or more appropriately, Obamacare?  Why would the administration openly flaunt the need to pass it before people can see what is in it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

Governments have been trying to resist the "global warming" thing since the early 1980's but despite the best efforts of "establishment" scientists and government panels, it's crept through. The only "lobbyists" have been outsiders.

And it is still being used to by companies and corporations to influence government to do what they want.  Do I have to mention again how a company backed by Al Gore got a loan to produce electric cars in Finland that retail at the price of $89,000? 

[Reelya]

If green energy can provide a cheaper and more reliable form of energy without the help of government (re: taxpayers), then I would have absolutely no problem with it.  However, that is far from the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

"A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[5] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies over the 2002–2008 period. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil-fuel based sources amounted to approximately $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy."

Thats $12 billion per year subsidies to fossil fuel industry. If you're going to cite tax-payers assistance to renewables you have to consider the same thing which the USA has always done for fossil fuels.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/Nuclear_Subsidies.html

And add $7 billion a year for U.S. taxpayers subsidies to nuclear industry, plus the US government throws in "security" measures for free. and spends tax-payers money to buy some of the "waste" and turn it into weapons (DU ammunition), thus saving the nuclear industry more costs.

If fossil fuels and nuclear energy can provide a cheaper and more reliable form of energy without the help of government (re: taxpayers), then I would have absolutely no problem with it.  However, that is far from the case.

Same shoe, other foot.

[Reelya]

You mean the same Administration that, uh.. gave Solyndra (produced solar panels) a $535 million loan to an Obama donor, disregarding all the red-flags that popped up during the vetting process? 
[...]
And it is still being used to by companies and corporations to influence government to do what they want.  Do I have to mention again how a company backed by Al Gore got a loan to produce electric cars in Finland that retail at the price of $89,000?

You do realize that if the USA doesn't start creating electric car companies then you'll end up importing EVERYTHING. Of course start-ups are going to have some problems and not every start-up is going to be a winner. Does this mean you should only back "established" companies?

Solyndra went out of business because they couldn't compete with cheaper solar-cells made in China due to falling prices for silica and other raw materials after the financial crisis. There was a point where they were more viable (thin film solar arrays being cheaper to make, previously)

So, you're saying America should give up and just import cheaper "green" tech from China