Global Warming

USA70PP said:
As are you.
Click to expand...
And of course me nor lotr10 will ever believe that about ourselves which is usually why we shake hands at this point and simply move on. Heck, we like and agree on many sci-fi shows and movies. I enjoy reading his opinions on many things but when it comes to this we are just miles apart. To each his own, it makes the debate forum fun.
 
irish_buffalo said:
Several things.

1). You are absolutely bonkers if you believe that this is nothing more than a power grab. And I do not think you are bonkers. I just see you subscribing to a mantra based on your politics.

2). I have already pointed out in this thread that the current system stayed for so long not because it was necessarily the most economically viable but because the players at the top did not want to change for THEIR own benefit and they controlled the system. We have had other technologies that were both cheaper and more efficient but they could not get into a powerful and well developed system. Power wise everything was based on coal from mining and train routes to distribution. Coal was king because a lot of people made a lot of money off of it and therefore lobbied for it.

3). Your last argument is flawed and you continue to use it. Remember, what got us here, won't get us there. From a power standpoint we were long overdue for change and it is finally happening. Burning coal is one step away from burning wood and as a species we have advanced beyond that archaic method. Even the cleaner and cheaper NG which you and I have talked about many times. Wind and solar are now cheaper than coal and we will only evolve more from here. Smaller and yet more efficient turbines. Personal household turbines. Battery storage is evolving every day. It is great to see.
Click to expand...

Serious question about #2.

What options have we had that are both cheaper and more efficient than carbon based fuels? Specifically which ones that were "pushed out" by those in "power" in the oil and gas industries as you are insinuating.
 
irish_buffalo said:
Several things.

1). You are absolutely bonkers if you believe that this is nothing more than a power grab. And I do not think you are bonkers. I just see you subscribing to a mantra based on your politics.

2). I have already pointed out in this thread that the current system stayed for so long not because it was necessarily the most economically viable but because the players at the top did not want to change for THEIR own benefit and they controlled the system. We have had other technologies that were both cheaper and more efficient but they could not get into a powerful and well developed system. Power wise everything was based on coal from mining and train routes to distribution. Coal was king because a lot of people made a lot of money off of it and therefore lobbied for it.

3). Your last argument is flawed and you continue to use it. Remember, what got us here, won't get us there. From a power standpoint we were long overdue for change and it is finally happening. Burning coal is one step away from burning wood and as a species we have advanced beyond that archaic method. Even the cleaner and cheaper NG which you and I have talked about many times. Wind and solar are now cheaper than coal and we will only evolve more from here. Smaller and yet more efficient turbines. Personal household turbines. Battery storage is evolving every day. It is great to see.
Click to expand...

1) I think there are two elements to this. The first is the small group of climate scientists who have proposed a THEORY that human release of CO2 into the atmosphere could cause warming and subsequent climate change. Among these scientists are some who like the increased attention AND funding that have flowed into their research as alarmism has intensified. But for this group it's not about grabbing power but securing funding & attention. Their theory has merit and deserves to be thoroughly researched. But it has NOT been proven yet nor has there been enough evidence gathered to justify any major changes in how we procure & use energy.

The group attempting a power grab are the left wing activists masquerading as "environmentalists". They see this as an opportunity to enact fundamental change to our current consumerist society. They have seized the climate scientists theory and inappropriately introduced a level of absolutism that is NOT justified by the evidence. They use this absolutism to declare that the science is settled to stifle scientific debate. They then use a classic sky is falling technique to begin the process of transferring power to themselves.

2) I disagree with your 2nd point. Throughout human history carbon based energy sources have been the most economically viable. You make the mistake of starting at coal when in fact you should start with WOOD. It was the burning of wood which taught humans the value of carbon based energy.

Burning wood built human civilization. Coal simply represented a more efficient expansion on burning wood and oil was a more efficient expansion on burning coal. And NG is a more efficient expansion on burning oil. Of course this only addresses energy production. Let's not ignore the civilization building Petroleum based chemical portfolio. Where would we be without oil sourced petrol-chemicals?

3) Nothing about carbon based energy sources precludes development of alternative based energy sources. Both Nuclear & Hydro grew up under the umbrella of oil & coal and have flourished. If Solar, wind and other alternatives are as cheap & efficient as you claim they will have no problem displacing oil on their own. They won't need government mandates to win the battle.

You bring up the story of coal & the railroads. And yes they were entrenched and supported by powerful interests. But this was because they worked. But along came OIL, then GASOLINE and automobiles and the rest is history. Oil/gasoline & autos destroyed the railroads. NG, hydro & Nuclear are slowly putting coal out of business. And this entire process happened organically without the need for the Oil industry to make up a story about how coal mining and railroads were leading to the end of the earth.

Everything you want will naturally play out over the next century. A 100 years will give us time to gradually move to alternative energy sources if they are in fact superior to the existing ones. This natural process of energy evolution will ease the transition and maintain our standard of living. It will take FULL exploitation of fossil fuels to lift civilization to the point where it can effectively switch over to the full scale use of alternative sources of energy.

If we immediately walk away from fossil fuels in response to "climate change" we will guarantee that alternative energy sources are not developed for the mass of humanity. The world will become feudalistic with a very thin layer of wealthy folks enjoying 21st century life while the rest of humanity toils in the darkness of an energy starved reality. I like Blade Runner as a movie not as a blueprint for our future.
 
Last edited:
irish_buffalo said:
And of course me nor lotr10 will ever believe that about ourselves which is usually why we shake hands at this point and simply move on. Heck, we like and agree on many sci-fi shows and movies. I enjoy reading his opinions on many things but when it comes to this we are just miles apart. To each his own, it makes the debate forum fun.
Click to expand...

It's so important to be able to disagree on things without demonizing those that you disagree with. You and I are clearly far apart on this topic. But I don't attach sinister motives to your disagreement. And as you noted on a lot of other stuff we are in agreement.
 
I just bought a large tranche of natural gas at $1.99 per decatherm ................ a literally unbelievable price.

Tens of millions of people, including seniors and fixed-income types, are benefiting by billions of dollars in energy savings this winter. This is what happens when republicans are in charge (instead of radical leftists) and they get out of the way of the innovators in the energy sector who are finding ways to find more resources and make it ever-more affordable.

Praise God from whom all blessings flow.

Praise the Lord that Trump won and republicans control key energy states.
 
Yorktown said:
Where is this massive media projection of Anti-AGW hysteria?
Where is the anti-Greta and her rant about the lies of AGW and demanding governments do less?

LOL. You know this is all about power and it is not the “Anti-AGW” forces who are trying to attain it.
Click to expand...

Whose power are they (AGW "forces," lol) trying to grab? It's semantics. Two disparent views trying to "grab" power.

Does anyone else hear "Onward Christian Solidiers" playing in the background?
 
eastisbest said:
Whose power are they (AGW "forces," lol) trying to grab? It's semantics. Two disparent views trying to "grab" power.

Does anyone else hear "Onward Christian Solidiers" playing in the background?
Click to expand...

Your first sentence is gibberish.

Your second sentence is interesting. Are you hearing dog whistles East? You know it takes a special person to hear what no one else can hear.
 
eastisbest said:
Whose power are they (AGW "forces," lol) trying to grab? It's semantics. Two disparent views trying to "grab" power.

Does anyone else hear "Onward Christian Solidiers" playing in the background?
Click to expand...

Whatever gov positions greens can obtain.
Then pass laws to limit whatever human behavior the greens want.

Greens are not after the truth or scientific fact. They are after power over you.
 
Last edited:
Certainly, at the point climate science information gets separated from socialist authoritarian solutions, there will be more unity on the problem. If climate "crisis" is only a "sky is falling, trust me, give me your wealth, and let me control your life and living standards" it will never be taken seriously - by people and scientists like me.

Consider this: Barak Obama says he believes in climate change as an "existential threat". Yet, he purchases a many millions dollar beach front property in Martha's Vinyard that will certainly be worthless in a few years if the climate alarmists are right. You tell me. What does Barak Hussein Obama's money tell you about what he really believes?
 
IVCguy said:
……. What does Barak Hussein Obama's money tell you about what he really believes?
Click to expand...

Then there were the flights to date night, flying in celebrities to entertain the family at the WH, the golf trips, the vacations..... Like Algore's screeds on the environment while he and tipper light up a 28K sq/ft mansion for the 2 of them, he flies private jets to go lecture people on climate change, etc. If you are asking everyone else to cut back, start with your own lifestyle and lead by example and not hypocrisy.
 
SWMCinci said:
Then there were the flights to date night, flying in celebrities to entertain the family at the WH, the golf trips, the vacations..... Like Algore's screeds on the environment while he and tipper light up a 28K sq/ft mansion for the 2 of them, he flies private jets to go lecture people on climate change, etc. If you are asking everyone else to cut back, start with your own lifestyle and lead by example and not hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
But there is something consistent in leftist/socialist/communist systems. Despite all the talk about justice and each individual working for the good of all, there are always, always two classes of people created: the common masses upon which their beliefs are imposed, and a ruling class that lives way, way above them. It is assumed that the ruling class is elite in terms of intelligence, talent, wisdom, etc. and the commoners must be ruled to maintain all of the common good that flows from their ruling over them. It is, therefore, necessary and fitting that these distinct classes exist and perform their roles. So, if you come from a blueblood family, or have a degree or two from an Ivy, or are a liberal-progressive prof at a major institution, or you do art in Hollywood, or you are a media person who is excellent at propaganda, it is precisely those kinds of smart and talented people that must run leftist systems.

The obvious hypocrisy is simply something that is inherent in what they have to do to create the utopia they are trying to achieve, and is accepted, but never acknowledged. However, I tell my leftie friends this all of the time: "When you people end up creating the utopia you are trying to achieve, no one will want to live in it, including you - unless you are in the ruling elite - and those seats are limited."
 
IVCguy said:
But there is something consistent in leftist/socialist/communist systems. Despite all the talk about justice and each individual working for the good of all, there are always, always two classes of people created: the common masses upon which their beliefs are imposed, and a ruling class that lives way, way above them. It is assumed that the ruling class is elite in terms of intelligence, talent, wisdom, etc. and the commoners must be ruled to maintain all of the common good that flows from their ruling over them. It is, therefore, necessary and fitting that these distinct classes exist and perform their roles. So, if you come from a blueblood family, or have a degree or two from an Ivy, or are a liberal-progressive prof at a major institution, or you do art in Hollywood, or you are a media person who is excellent at propaganda, it is precisely those kinds of smart and talented people that must run leftist systems.

The obvious hypocrisy is simply something that is inherent in what they have to do to create the utopia they are trying to achieve, and is accepted, but never acknowledged. However, I tell my leftie friends this all of the time: "When you people end up creating the utopia you are trying to achieve, no one will want to live in it, including you - unless you are in the ruling elite - and those seats are limited."
Click to expand...

Rep John Dingell (Democrat) said the following upon passage of Obamacare. "It takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”
 
irish_buffalo said:
Several things.

1). You are absolutely bonkers if you believe that this is nothing more than a power grab. And I do not think you are bonkers. I just see you subscribing to a mantra based on your politics.

2). I have already pointed out in this thread that the current system stayed for so long not because it was necessarily the most economically viable but because the players at the top did not want to change for THEIR own benefit and they controlled the system. We have had other technologies that were both cheaper and more efficient but they could not get into a powerful and well developed system. Power wise everything was based on coal from mining and train routes to distribution. Coal was king because a lot of people made a lot of money off of it and therefore lobbied for it.

3). Your last argument is flawed and you continue to use it. Remember, what got us here, won't get us there. From a power standpoint we were long overdue for change and it is finally happening. Burning coal is one step away from burning wood and as a species we have advanced beyond that archaic method. Even the cleaner and cheaper NG which you and I have talked about many times. Wind and solar are now cheaper than coal and we will only evolve more from here. Smaller and yet more efficient turbines. Personal household turbines. Battery storage is evolving every day. It is great to see.
Click to expand...
Yes everyone will have a windmill in their backyard ? you understand the crazies, like Greta, don't want to wait decades to transition...they think all production of fossil fuels should stop immediately. They would cause world wide misery with no understanding if it would actually do anything significant.
 
eastisbest said:
Whose power are they (AGW "forces," lol) trying to grab? It's semantics. Two disparent views trying to "grab" power.

Does anyone else hear "Onward Christian Solidiers" playing in the background?
Click to expand...
They are Marxists. You figure it out.
 
y2h said:
They are Marxists. You figure it out.
Click to expand...
Marxist? Ok.

Then your railings are some of the most Marxist I've heard. I'm only seeing opposing views. Not a difference in the measures willing to take to impose those views.

Are they not free to have their opinion? Are they not free to use their constitutional rights to sway the laws? We have a system for dealing with that. There are winners and losers and if anyone finds it too unbearable, there are exits to whereever they think paradise is.

When "AGW forces" was posted, I expected something more omninous.

Yorktown said:
eastisbest said:
Whose power are they (AGW "forces," lol) trying to grab? It's semantics. Two disparent views trying to "grab" power.

Does anyone else hear "Onward Christian Solidiers" playing in the background?
Click to expand...
Whatever gov positions greens can obtain.
Then pass laws to limit whatever human behavior the greens want.

Greens are not after the truth or scientific fact. They are after power over you.
Click to expand...

That would be the contitution's "power" over me. They have every right to it. Christian organizations have done it. Conservative organizations have done it. Even some to which I belong. They back candidates and they back laws.

You NEVER voted for a law that essentially limited (took) the power (by your own definition) of people? Tax levy? Sheriff? I'm interested in your view because you seem to have some idea of WHICH specific powers they are after to take from me. I feel that knowing that, will better guide my voting.
 
Last edited:
Raider6309 said:
Global warming is real but it comes down to, do you want a carbon tax or not? Will you go to war against China, India, and Africa over global warming?
Click to expand...
Kinda funny how all of these climate protestors ignore the biggest culprit contributing to global pollution. They’re no difft than the NBA, except they just don’t like criticizing non white countries
 
eastisbest said:
Marxist? Ok.

Then your railings are some of the most Marxist I've heard. I'm only seeing opposing views. Not a difference in the measures willing to take to impose those views.

Are they not free to have their opinion? Are they not free to use their constitutional rights to sway the laws? We have a system for dealing with that. There are winners and losers and if anyone finds it too unbearable, there are exits to whereever they think paradise is.

When "AGW forces" was posted, I expected something more omninous.



That would be the contitution's "power" over me. They have every right to it. Christian organizations have done it. Conservative organizations have done it. Even some to which I belong. They back candidates and they back laws.

You NEVER voted for a law that essentially limited (took) the power (by your own definition) of people? Tax levy? Sheriff? I'm interested in your view because you seem to have some idea of WHICH specific powers they are after to take from me. I feel that knowing that, will better guide my voting.
Click to expand...
Who said they arent free to pursue whatever ideology they want? The fact remains they are authoritarians. They want to strip your rights and confiscate your money in the name of climate catastrophe which they cant prove will significantly change anything. It's a shame you dont listen to what they want. But I enjoyed the strawman.
 
IVCguy said:
But there is something consistent in leftist/socialist/communist systems. Despite all the talk about justice and each individual working for the good of all, there are always, always two classes of people created: the common masses upon which their beliefs are imposed, and a ruling class that lives way, way above them. It is assumed that the ruling class is elite in terms of intelligence, talent, wisdom, etc. and the commoners must be ruled to maintain all of the common good that flows from their ruling over them. It is, therefore, necessary and fitting that these distinct classes exist and perform their roles. So, if you come from a blueblood family, or have a degree or two from an Ivy, or are a liberal-progressive prof at a major institution, or you do art in Hollywood, or you are a media person who is excellent at propaganda, it is precisely those kinds of smart and talented people that must run leftist systems.

The obvious hypocrisy is simply something that is inherent in what they have to do to create the utopia they are trying to achieve, and is accepted, but never acknowledged. However, I tell my leftie friends this all of the time: "When you people end up creating the utopia you are trying to achieve, no one will want to live in it, including you - unless you are in the ruling elite - and those seats are limited."
Click to expand...

This is so true. The hell that awaits 99% of humanity IF these people ever take ABSOLUTE control is terrifying.

The worst thing about all this is that while these people regard themselves highly they are in fact mediocrities of the first degree.
 
I'm betting that in more than a few articles over the coming weeks, climate change will be blamed...

'We must act immediately': Swarms of locusts in Africa are worst in decades

Swarms of hungry locusts are devouring crops in Eastern Africa, the worst invasion of the insects in decades.

The outbreak of desert locusts is the worst that Kenya has seen in 70 years, according to the Associated Press. The insects have been pouring into the country from Ethiopia and Somalia and leaving behind destroyed farmland in a part of the world already suffering from hunger.
Click to expand...
www.washingtonexaminer.com

'We must act immediately': Swarms of locusts in Africa are worst in decades

Swarms of hungry locusts are devouring crops in Eastern Africa, the worst invasion of the insects in decades.
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com
 
Yappi said:
I'm betting that in more than a few articles over the coming weeks, climate change will be blamed...

'We must act immediately': Swarms of locusts in Africa are worst in decades


www.washingtonexaminer.com

'We must act immediately': Swarms of locusts in Africa are worst in decades

Swarms of hungry locusts are devouring crops in Eastern Africa, the worst invasion of the insects in decades.
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com
Click to expand...
Ooh Ooh, I know that one.

10_com1.jpg
 
eastisbest said:
Ooh Ooh, I know that one.

10_com1.jpg
Click to expand...


I feel bad for Moses. He represents strong scientific evidence that plagues of locusts existed LONG before men industrialized their civilization. Proof positive that natural (or in this case divine) variation swamps out anything caused by human CO2 emissions.

But like the alarmists ruthlessly hid the decline and removed the Medieval Warm period from history this old guy with the grey beard is about to get climategated!
 
lotr10 said:
I feel bad for Moses. He represents strong scientific evidence that plagues of locusts existed LONG before men industrialized their civilization. Proof positive that natural (or in this case divine) variation swamps out anything caused by human CO2 emissions.

But like the alarmists ruthlessly hid the decline and removed the Medieval Warm period from history this old guy with the grey beard is about to get climategated!
Click to expand...

You poor soul, still don't understand Science, correlations, cause and effects, almost.. nothing except what you get off the blogs and pundits.

How short can I keep this.

JUST because one thing can cause a thing doesn't mean another thing can't cause the same or similar thing. Particularly something with so many causes such as energy distribution.

Like a meteor hitting Earth, heating it up. Like man-made by-products resulting in a "green house" effect. I'm not claiming evidence for either mind you. Just trying to point out how deficient you are and hope you will be inspired to remedy that... Pick up an unbiased study or two, see how they're done. Go practice. Maybe do some experimental research and of course, not make any conclusions based on it because in your world that would be "un-scientific."
 
eastisbest said:
You poor soul, still don't understand Science, correlations, cause and effects, almost.. nothing except what you get off the blogs and pundits.

How short can I keep this.

JUST because one thing can cause a thing doesn't mean another thing can't cause the same or similar thing. Particularly something with so many causes such as energy distribution.

Like a meteor hitting Earth, heating it up. Like man-made by-products resulting in a "green house" effect. I'm not claiming evidence for either mind you. Just trying to point out how deficient you are and hope you will be inspired to remedy that... Pick up an unbiased study or two, see how they're done. Go practice. Maybe do some experimental research and of course, not make any conclusions based on it because in your world that would be "un-scientific."
Click to expand...

Do I have to attach a sarcasm emoji to my posts when I'm obviously joking?

As for the rest, I can assure you I know the difference between causation & correlation and have read more then my fair share of published scientific papers. Oh and I spent 35 years doing scientific research of all kinds and never encountered the kind of sloppy science and overreaching conclusions that typify the climate change literature.

But hey I'm open minded so if you can direct me to even one published paper that represents the kind of unbiased, good science that you claim supports the climate change theory I would be happy to read it.

Oh and what was your scientific background again?
 
Technology will take care of any negative effect man has on the planet. I don’t lose one microsecond of sleep over it.
Those of you losing your mind over people who see no urgency in this matter, I guess get over it if you can. Guess not though since this thread keeps getting longer.
 
eastisbest said:
You poor soul, still don't understand Science, correlations, cause and effects, almost.. nothing except what you get off the blogs and pundits.

How short can I keep this.

JUST because one thing can cause a thing doesn't mean another thing can't cause the same or similar thing. Particularly something with so many causes such as energy distribution.

Like a meteor hitting Earth, heating it up. Like man-made by-products resulting in a "green house" effect. I'm not claiming evidence for either mind you. Just trying to point out how deficient you are and hope you will be inspired to remedy that... Pick up an unbiased study or two, see how they're done. Go practice. Maybe do some experimental research and of course, not make any conclusions based on it because in your world that would be "un-scientific."
Click to expand...

I love when someone says "you don't understand science" to someone who literally has a PhD in chemistry (can't remember what specialty, just remember reading that about lotr sometime in the past) and did scientific research for decades.

Yup, pretty sure he doesn't understand science...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top