Yappi Sports - THE Ohio Prep Sports Authority  

Go Back   Yappi Sports - THE Ohio Prep Sports Authority > General Sports > Debate Forum

Hello Guest!
Take a minute to register, It's 100% FREE! What are you waiting for?
Register Now
Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #121  
Old 08-10-17, 04:00 PM
JoshuaRanch JoshuaRanch is offline
All Ohio
 
Join Date: 08-01-16
Posts: 624
JoshuaRanch is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestSideBomber View Post
To be honest, those terms don't worry me too much in regards to scientific studies. There will always be a degree of uncertainty when modeling future events. And while different scientists might draw varying conclusions based on what their models predict, that 97% of them independently came to a general consensus speaks louder to me than whether or not they 100% agree

I wish there were a simple, single number to go off of, but climate change is such a big question and problem that I just don't think there is a way to boil it all down to something like that.

I think it will survive, but I'm not sure how much it will adjust back. But agreed. It can't just be us. That is fighting a losing battle for sure.
Ahhh, the 97% quote. Do you even know where that percentage came from? Do some research, isn't that what you ask others to do? Hint- thesis paper written by a University of Illinois Doctorate Student. That percentage is used by all the "climate" group. There was another survey of somewhere around 11,000 climatologists who mentioned "Climate " in their work, of that group if I recall a third of that group even mentioned climate change or global warming in their research, and of that it was very few who even mentioned man as a significant component of changes to the climate. These memes have been pushed into the man made "climate change" propaganda that all your sources cite or quote. But as long as there are those out there like yourself that will buy it hook line and sinker, they keep pushing the meme. It means more money in their wallets, mostly coming from people like myself by stealing my tax dollars. Useful idiots. 20 years the earths temp has gone up like .2 %. The Feds let that slip out a few years back by mistake to the public before massaging their numbers with bits and pieces of the total data. Man's contribution to damaging and changing the "Climate" or making us warmer is something like .07%. To make a dent in actually changing things would take another 99.93% effort on our part. For every ice berg that is melting, an ice sheeth is growing just as deep and wide and high as the melting ice. The "Climate" people, of course, leave that info out.

This is a scam, it always has been, always will be, eaten up by useful idiots so rich people and politicians can take the productive's money. Tried and true since time began.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 08-10-17, 04:49 PM
lotr10 lotr10 is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-26-03
Location: fairfield, ohio
Posts: 20,987
lotr10 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediMaster View Post
I don't see why it's unreasonable or even worthy of scorn to imagine that people can both accept climate change as occurring while at the same time acknowledging to-date there have been no viable long term solutions to mitigate the effects of the already irreversible build-up of GHGs in the atmosphere, resulting in a "warming" Earth.

Wind, solar and nuclear power ARE the future of the energy industry, but I argue that their development and need for global utilization are required due to future inevitable fossil fuel scarcities that if left unrecognized, could lead to true global energy crises. The technology in the "safest" of these renewable sources however is still in the infancy stages of their development when considering efficiency, output and availability on a global scale.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=99888903

There's been studies conducted that suggest if we were to completely cease all CO2 emissions today, BOTH human and non-human produced, it would take at least a thousand years for the CO2 already stored in the atmosphere to be reduced at least 80%. So not only would you have to stop the literal life-force of billions on this planet FOREVER (I'm sure that wouldn't be apocalyptic in its implementation or anything), you would have to prevent nature from emitting its own CO2. Accepting this part of the "scientific consensus" is key to understanding the vast majority of what alarmists refer to as "deniers"' mentality on the subject. Yes global warming is real, yes humans contribute to it, no, there is not a single way to stop it right now or even a thousand years from now without allowing billions to die and us reverting back to the stone age - and that's a GUESS as to whether or not that would even help in that time-frame, no guarantees of reversal.
Fair post Jedi and I would add that your last paragraph is key because there is no reason to believe that the current CO2 level or even higher such levels will be uniformly "bad" for the climate. One of the things that drives me crazy about the alarmists is that they ONLY talk about the NEGATIVE outcomes of a warming climate. They ignore the very clear benefits that would arise should the temperature of the earth's climate over the next century rise by a few degrees and atmospheric CO2 levels double.

I remember a few years ago I read a "scientific" article that breathlessly reported on how higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere combined with warmer temperatures would enable POISON IVY to explode in growth. Imagine the horror. Yet nowhere in the article did they comment on the obvious - if poison ivy growth rates take off so would grape vines & strawberry's & blackberries & almost every other agricultural product.

Another positive to a warmer climate is an expansion of the temperate zone into the sub arctic/arctic regions. Keep in mind that Climate Change theory warns that the warming will be greatest in the sub-arctic & arctic regions. If true this would free up about 10,000,000 square miles of potential farm land, natural habitat & living space in the northern hemisphere alone. Bottom line is that like most things in life there will be POSITIVES & NEGATIVES to climate change. To say it wall all be bad is foolish.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 08-10-17, 05:11 PM
WestSideBomber WestSideBomber is online now
All World
 
Join Date: 04-16-05
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 4,607
WestSideBomber is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshuaRanch View Post
Ahhh, the 97% quote. Do you even know where that percentage came from? Do some research, isn't that what you ask others to do? Hint- thesis paper written by a University of Illinois Doctorate Student. That percentage is used by all the "climate" group. There was another survey of somewhere around 11,000 climatologists who mentioned "Climate " in their work, of that group if I recall a third of that group even mentioned climate change or global warming in their research, and of that it was very few who even mentioned man as a significant component of changes to the climate. These memes have been pushed into the man made "climate change" propaganda that all your sources cite or quote. But as long as there are those out there like yourself that will buy it hook line and sinker, they keep pushing the meme. It means more money in their wallets, mostly coming from people like myself by stealing my tax dollars. Useful idiots. 20 years the earths temp has gone up like .2 %. The Feds let that slip out a few years back by mistake to the public before massaging their numbers with bits and pieces of the total data. Man's contribution to damaging and changing the "Climate" or making us warmer is something like .07%. To make a dent in actually changing things would take another 99.93% effort on our part. For every ice berg that is melting, an ice sheeth is growing just as deep and wide and high as the melting ice. The "Climate" people, of course, leave that info out.

This is a scam, it always has been, always will be, eaten up by useful idiots so rich people and politicians can take the productive's money. Tried and true since time began.
"In reality, if a paper said humans are responsible for less than half of global warming since 1950, we put it in the category of the less than 3% of papers rejecting or minimizing human-caused global warming."

"Itís most accurate to say that 97% of relevant peer-reviewed studies agree that humans are causing global warming, 99.9% of climate papers donít reject that theory, and those who deny the overwhelming consensus are peddling misinformation."

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ctonics-a-hoax

See that? That's me, backing up a claim, with a source, after you placed the burden of proof on me to do so. Neato how that works, right?

Where is that .07% number from? Cause that's exactly what Neo is after, if true.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 08-10-17, 05:16 PM
WestSideBomber WestSideBomber is online now
All World
 
Join Date: 04-16-05
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 4,607
WestSideBomber is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediMaster View Post
I don't see why it's unreasonable or even worthy of scorn to imagine that people can both accept climate change as occurring while at the same time acknowledging to-date there have been no viable long term solutions to mitigate the effects of the already irreversible build-up of GHGs in the atmosphere, resulting in a "warming" Earth.

Wind, solar and nuclear power ARE the future of the energy industry, but I argue that their development and need for global utilization are required due to future inevitable fossil fuel scarcities that if left unrecognized, could lead to true global energy crises. The technology in the "safest" of these renewable sources however is still in the infancy stages of their development when considering efficiency, output and availability on a global scale.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=99888903

There's been studies conducted that suggest if we were to completely cease all CO2 emissions today, BOTH human and non-human produced, it would take at least a thousand years for the CO2 already stored in the atmosphere to be reduced at least 80%. So not only would you have to stop the literal life-force of billions on this planet FOREVER (I'm sure that wouldn't be apocalyptic in its implementation or anything), you would have to prevent nature from emitting its own CO2. Accepting this part of the "scientific consensus" is key to understanding the vast majority of what alarmists refer to as "deniers"' mentality on the subject. Yes global warming is real, yes humans contribute to it, no, there is not a single way to stop it right now or even a thousand years from now without allowing billions to die and us reverting back to the stone age - and that's a GUESS as to whether or not that would even help in that time-frame, no guarantees of reversal.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 08-10-17, 05:30 PM
lotr10 lotr10 is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-26-03
Location: fairfield, ohio
Posts: 20,987
lotr10 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestSideBomber View Post
"In reality, if a paper said humans are responsible for less than half of global warming since 1950, we put it in the category of the less than 3% of papers rejecting or minimizing human-caused global warming."

"It’s most accurate to say that 97% of relevant peer-reviewed studies agree that humans are causing global warming, 99.9% of climate papers don’t reject that theory, and those who deny the overwhelming consensus are peddling misinformation."

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ctonics-a-hoax

See that? That's me, backing up a claim, with a source, after you placed the burden of proof on me to do so. Neato how that works, right?

Where is that .07% number from? Cause that's exactly what Neo is after, if true.
Since most scientists operating out of academic labs are desperate for funding they will try to relate their work to the hottest, grant rich area out there and that's "Climate Change". And if their "peer" reviewed publications address the coming disaster of Climate Change all the better! That's how you get the poison ivy article I described.

Oh and keep in mind that while non-scientists laud "peer review" as some sort of high standard ensuring high scientific standards, the process has come into dispute:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...2330#t=article

Now these criticisms of "peer review" are general in nature. But in the case of climate science you have to overlay the general problems of peer review with the bias that the system can introduce when it's abused by a small cabal of like minded scientists trying to protect their grant sources. I'm referring of course to the leaked emails showing that climate scientists supporting human induced catastrophic climate change manipulated the peer review process to their own ends.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta.../#3324471227ba
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 08-10-17, 06:32 PM
JediMaster JediMaster is offline
All Ohio
 
Join Date: 02-16-11
Location: Mason, OH
Posts: 761
JediMaster is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestSideBomber View Post
Intelligent, well-crafted, and most importantly, original rebuttal. You have a gift
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 08-10-17, 06:52 PM
WestSideBomber WestSideBomber is online now
All World
 
Join Date: 04-16-05
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 4,607
WestSideBomber is on a distinguished road
Federal report points to human activity as prime cause of climate change

Quote:
Originally Posted by JediMaster View Post
Intelligent, well-crafted, and most importantly, original rebuttal. You have a gift

It wasn't a rebuttal, I just thought it would be a funny video to post. Sorry?

Didn't realize it was a no-fun zone.

Last edited by WestSideBomber; 08-10-17 at 07:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 08-10-17, 08:27 PM
y2h y2h is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-18-01
Location: Mr. H-O-O-V-E-R!!!!
Posts: 11,483
y2h is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Bluth View Post
If there was even the slightest chance we were causing this, I can't understand not wanting to try to improve and reverse the situation. Green technologies seem like a win/win in nearly every direction other than for the outdated coal and oil industries. Time to move forward and discover our true energy potential
Other than for consumers
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 08-10-17, 08:41 PM
WestSideBomber WestSideBomber is online now
All World
 
Join Date: 04-16-05
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 4,607
WestSideBomber is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by lotr10 View Post
Since most scientists operating out of academic labs are desperate for funding they will try to relate their work to the hottest, grant rich area out there and that's "Climate Change". And if their "peer" reviewed publications address the coming disaster of Climate Change all the better! That's how you get the poison ivy article I described.

Oh and keep in mind that while non-scientists laud "peer review" as some sort of high standard ensuring high scientific standards, the process has come into dispute:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...2330#t=article

Now these criticisms of "peer review" are general in nature. But in the case of climate science you have to overlay the general problems of peer review with the bias that the system can introduce when it's abused by a small cabal of like minded scientists trying to protect their grant sources. I'm referring of course to the leaked emails showing that climate scientists supporting human induced catastrophic climate change manipulated the peer review process to their own ends.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta.../#3324471227ba

I'd be interested to read the actual emails rather than snippets through a opinion-piece filter. I don't doubt the sincerity of the author, but with such small snippets taken out its hard to get a true idea of what was in the leak.

I understand your hesitation to trust the peer-reviewed process. It is definitely not a perfect process. I did like the "least worst we have" way of phrasing it lol.

For me, at least, I still trust the process and the people doing the research enough to believe them.

P.S. Thanks for actually discussing the topic.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 08-10-17, 08:46 PM
y2h y2h is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-18-01
Location: Mr. H-O-O-V-E-R!!!!
Posts: 11,483
y2h is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crusaders View Post
To summarize, it's a nonsense question posed by people who don't know what they're talking about.
You can't prescribe a cure without knowing the scope of the problem. If humans are 10-15% of the problem a massive reshaping of our economy and way of life is foolish and worthless.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 08-10-17, 08:55 PM
TigerPaw TigerPaw is online now
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 03-19-02
Posts: 9,096
TigerPaw is on a distinguished road
its worth reshaping for many reasons beyond climate change. That's why it already is. Where do you think the new jobs are coming from? Coal? Lol.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 08-10-17, 10:51 PM
EagleGuy EagleGuy is offline
All American
 
Join Date: 06-26-16
Location: Chestnut Ridge Park
Posts: 1,885
EagleGuy is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWMCinci View Post
Agree, but I also see nuclear as part of the equation. It doesn't appear to be an imperative that something be done immediately since much of the remediation seems to be creating a market for transferring wealth vs actually cleaning up the atmosphere.
Maybe, in "the immediate" we should decide what to do with the spent nuclear fuel we have stockpiled. I'm not in favor of shooting it into space, but perhaps we can still move it to the New Mexico mountains, especially now that Harry Reid is history.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 08-10-17, 10:59 PM
lotr10 lotr10 is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-26-03
Location: fairfield, ohio
Posts: 20,987
lotr10 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestSideBomber View Post
I'd be interested to read the actual emails rather than snippets through a opinion-piece filter. I don't doubt the sincerity of the author, but with such small snippets taken out its hard to get a true idea of what was in the leak.

I understand your hesitation to trust the peer-reviewed process. It is definitely not a perfect process. I did like the "least worst we have" way of phrasing it lol.

For me, at least, I still trust the process and the people doing the research enough to believe them.

P.S. Thanks for actually discussing the topic.
It was called Climate Gate and there were three reactions to what the "stolen" emails represented:

* The emails are fake (that has not been proven) or that they are grossly out of context. Nothing to see here, move along.

* The emails were stolen so you shouldn't read them. Kind of like the reaction to the WikiLeaks release of the DNC emails - no one disputed they were real but instead of focusing on the content they focused on the source.

* The emails confirmed to Skeptics that a small cabal of climate scientists were manipulating the research process to ensure that no one questioned Climate Change science.

Here's a decent summary:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/...te-2-0-emails/

You can trace back links at this site to earlier Climate Gate emails. Also some folks will attack the Watts Up with That website as it's one of the better known skeptic sites. But my experience is the site is very accurate and honest.

Here's a long summary of Climategate from a skeptic.

http://www.thegwpf.org/images/storie...-Inquiries.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 08-10-17, 11:05 PM
lotr10 lotr10 is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-26-03
Location: fairfield, ohio
Posts: 20,987
lotr10 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerPaw View Post
its worth reshaping for many reasons beyond climate change. That's why it already is. Where do you think the new jobs are coming from? Coal? Lol.
No, but coal can provide cheap and abundant base power to fuel the manufacturing plants in which the new jobs will come from. The key to manufacturing is a cheap and reliable energy supply. Heating & cooling those huge buildings and running all that complex machinery sucks up a lot of electricity. Working class jobs depend on cheap power and coal can provide the cheapest power.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 08-10-17, 11:41 PM
BlueJayFan BlueJayFan is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 11-23-14
Posts: 4,122
BlueJayFan is on a distinguished road
You guys are still at it?
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 08-11-17, 07:21 AM
SWMCinci SWMCinci is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-20-07
Location: Outside of Ohio..... Now
Posts: 16,501
SWMCinci is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleGuy View Post
Maybe, in "the immediate" we should decide what to do with the spent nuclear fuel we have stockpiled. I'm not in favor of shooting it into space, but perhaps we can still move it to the New Mexico mountains, especially now that Harry Reid is history.
We should take advantage of Yucca Mountain for long-term and interim storage. We could also use spent fuel rods to build the wall along the southern border. That should make it a little more worthy of avoiding.

Maybe instead of investing billions in unproven green technologies, we spend billions to figure out the best way to clean and recycle spent nuclear rods. Maybe instead of space we shoot them into the core of the planet. Since they produce heat through radioactive decay, maybe we find a 2nd life for them in utilizing the heat.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 08-11-17, 07:24 AM
irish_buffalo irish_buffalo is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 12-06-09
Posts: 3,084
irish_buffalo is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by lotr10 View Post
No, but coal can provide cheap and abundant base power to fuel the manufacturing plants in which the new jobs will come from. The key to manufacturing is a cheap and reliable energy supply. Heating & cooling those huge buildings and running all that complex machinery sucks up a lot of electricity. Working class jobs depend on cheap power and coal can provide the cheapest power.
You are just dead wrong. Coal made it this far because the industry was reluctant to change. The Coal Industry actually lobbied for their archaic system to stay around far longer than what it should have.

As you mention previously, Natural Gas is FAR less damaging and FAR more efficient. Regardless of Trump's promise's to the Coal Industry it is over. OH/WV/PA have built a combined 6 new Combined Cycle Natural Gas plants with 8 more on the books while coal plants are being shuttered left and right. Not because of government mandates but because Natural Gas is FAR more efficient.

I always explain to people to think about heating their own house. In many ways powerhouses are very similar. With coal you have to shovel a bunch of the stuff into a furnace and allow it burn out. With NG you can pinpoint control up and down how much you burn for what energy.

The major problem for workers is Natural Gas plants are far less laborious to run and maintain. And Natural Gas itself takes far less manhours to pull from the ground.

Walk into a coalburning facility on any given day and there are workers everywhere and it is an extremely dirty site. Go to a NG facility and it will look like a ghost town and you could eat off of the floor.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 08-11-17, 07:40 AM
lotr10 lotr10 is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-26-03
Location: fairfield, ohio
Posts: 20,987
lotr10 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by irish_buffalo View Post
You are just dead wrong. Coal made it this far because the industry was reluctant to change. The Coal Industry actually lobbied for their archaic system to stay around far longer than what it should have.

As you mention previously, Natural Gas is FAR less damaging and FAR more efficient. Regardless of Trump's promise's to the Coal Industry it is over. OH/WV/PA have built a combined 6 new Combined Cycle Natural Gas plants with 8 more on the books while coal plants are being shuttered left and right. Not because of government mandates but because Natural Gas is FAR more efficient.

I always explain to people to think about heating their own house. In many ways powerhouses are very similar. With coal you have to shovel a bunch of the stuff into a furnace and allow it burn out. With NG you can pinpoint control up and down how much you burn for what energy.

The major problem for workers is Natural Gas plants are far less laborious to run and maintain. And Natural Gas itself takes far less manhours to pull from the ground.

Walk into a coalburning facility on any given day and there are workers everywhere and it is an extremely dirty site. Go to a NG facility and it will look like a ghost town and you could eat off of the floor.
I support full exploitation of natural gas but never forget that NG is a fossil fuel that produces CO2 and I have a sneaking suspicion that the moment the climate change alarmists have removed coal & oil from the industrial equation they will target the last of the CO2 "polluting" fuels in natural gas.

The United States possesses the largest deposits of coal on earth. It makes sense to spend effort on making coal extraction & burning as safe & clean as possible. We know that burning coal is a very efficient source of energy and so IMO the technical challenge of making coal fired power plants "cleaner" is less daunting then converting the current electrical grid to solar and/or wind.

As far as your description of coal burning facility's go I agree that they can be dirty places to work and we need to clean them up as much as possible. But I'm talking about coal burning power plants, NOT burning coal ON SITE. BTW, I'm not aware that there are a whole lot of homes or factories that are shoveling coal into furnaces in the basement of their operations. I'm talking about utilizing coal fired power plants to produce cheap electricity - just like China is doing - and then transmit that electricity to homes & factories. In the situation where a manufacturing operation is huge (like auto manufacturing) then an onsite coal fed power plant might make sense. But even here the power plant would be a stand alone building separated from where the bulk of the people worked.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 08-11-17, 08:51 AM
TigerPaw TigerPaw is online now
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 03-19-02
Posts: 9,096
TigerPaw is on a distinguished road
Give it up lotr10 coal as a significant fuel source ain't coming back, geesh. Thank God you aren't a broker.

And your "sneaking suspicion" about NG is not a secret, lol. Rather openly stated. A cleaner more efficient transitional fuel source, away from dirtier technologies, towards ever cleaner, safer and sustainable ones. How awful right???!

Just quietly thank progressive thinkers for the lower, stabilized energy prices you've enjoyed the past several years, and move on. The devastating spikes we saw in the 70's and 2000's will not be repeated.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 08-11-17, 09:07 AM
lotr10 lotr10 is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-26-03
Location: fairfield, ohio
Posts: 20,987
lotr10 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerPaw View Post
Give it up lotr10 coal as a significant fuel source ain't coming back, geesh. Thank God you aren't a broker.

And your "sneaking suspicion" about NG is not a secret, lol. Rather openly stated. A cleaner more efficient transitional fuel source, away from dirtier technologies, towards ever cleaner, safer and sustainable ones. How awful right???!

Just quietly thank progressive thinkers for the lower, stabilized energy prices you've enjoyed the past several years, and move on. The devastating spikes we saw in the 70's and 2000's will not be repeated.
Well for China coal IS the significant energy source of choice. Ditto for India and in fact for any developing country desperately trying to lift its people out of abject poverty.

Natural Gas is NOT a transitional energy source it is likely to be, along side of oil, the MAIN energy source for the foreseeable future.

Why would I thank "progressive leaders" who at every turn have tried to thwart the extraction of coal, oil AND YES natural gas. The only folks to thank for the current energy stability and the fact that America is awash in natural gas & oil are the innovators, engineers, scientists & entrepreneurs in the oil & gas business. And yes that even includes Big Oil. In spite of the barriers put in their way by the Obama administration these folks have triumphed in turning America back into an oil & gas superpower.

If energy had been left entirely to progressive leadership we would be paying 50% more for our heating/cooling costs while pumping gas at $5/gallon.

As Glen Reynolds at Instapundit often says: "Have you hugged a Fracker today".
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 08-11-17, 09:33 AM
irish_buffalo irish_buffalo is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 12-06-09
Posts: 3,084
irish_buffalo is on a distinguished road
A coal burning facility IS a coal burning power plant.

China and India are beginning to tap into their Natural Gas and building new power plants.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 08-11-17, 09:41 AM
TigerPaw TigerPaw is online now
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 03-19-02
Posts: 9,096
TigerPaw is on a distinguished road
What drives oil prices down are alternative fuel choices, not greater reliance. Spare me the drill baby drill bs. We don't set oil prices. When OPEC charges $100 guess what? Exxon does too, very happily. What were all the phucking oil experts and innovators of the last adm. doing while you were getting raped? Laughing all the way to the bank.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 08-11-17, 09:41 AM
irish_buffalo irish_buffalo is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 12-06-09
Posts: 3,084
irish_buffalo is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by lotr10 View Post
Why would I thank "progressive leaders" who at every turn have tried to thwart the extraction of coal, oil AND YES natural gas. The only folks to thank for the current energy stability and the fact that America is awash in natural gas & oil are the innovators, engineers, scientists & entrepreneurs in the oil & gas business.
Progressive leaders, on either side of the isle, are the ones that realize change was long overdue and know and understand that we needed to diversify our energy sector for many reasons.

You paint this boogeyman scenario of these die hard leftist tree huggers and those folks represent the left as much as the ultra conservative world is going to end bafoons represent the right.

90% of us are in the middle.

On a side note, drive the PA turnpike and look at all the coal industry propaganda billboards. Little kids wearing miners hardhats while crying. The once powerful industry, that lobbied for years to stay on top, is like an injured dying cornered dog at this point. We've simply found better ways to get our energy.

You'd consider me "left" and I'm all for fracking and Natural Gas extraction. I'm also in favor of Solar and Wind. Too many bright folks in this world to not be able to figure out our energy solutions while leaving as small a destructive footprint as possible.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 08-12-17, 08:32 AM
lotr10 lotr10 is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-26-03
Location: fairfield, ohio
Posts: 20,987
lotr10 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by irish_buffalo View Post
Progressive leaders, on either side of the isle, are the ones that realize change was long overdue and know and understand that we needed to diversify our energy sector for many reasons.

You paint this boogeyman scenario of these die hard leftist tree huggers and those folks represent the left as much as the ultra conservative world is going to end bafoons represent the right.

90% of us are in the middle.

On a side note, drive the PA turnpike and look at all the coal industry propaganda billboards. Little kids wearing miners hardhats while crying. The once powerful industry, that lobbied for years to stay on top, is like an injured dying cornered dog at this point. We've simply found better ways to get our energy.

You'd consider me "left" and I'm all for fracking and Natural Gas extraction. I'm also in favor of Solar and Wind. Too many bright folks in this world to not be able to figure out our energy solutions while leaving as small a destructive footprint as possible.
In arguing that today's low fuel & energy costs has anything to do with "alternate energy sources" & "progressive leadership" you and TigerPaw are engaging in magical thinking at its finest. I mean you two sound like a Cleveland Browns fan trying to argue that the Browns had something to do with last years New England patriots Super Bowl season because both teams play in the NFL.

I'll repeat myself again: low fuel prices & abundant energy is due almost entirely to the innovative & entrepreneurial spirit of the American oil industry with a small assist from a slowing Chinese economy. The existence of alternative energy sources had nothing to do with it and progressives actively worked against it.

You are aware that about 91% of America's electricity is produced by the Big Four: Natural gas (34%); Coal (30%); Nuclear (20%) & Hydro (7%). Throw in burning oil (1%) for electricity and that number rises to 92%. Meanwhile wind (5.6%) & Solar (0.9) account for only 6.5%! In fact the total alternative contribution is about 8%! Hardly enough to exert a big effect on prices & supply. And I'm just talking electricity production here, if you consider fuel to power engines (Trucks, cars, motorcycles, tractors, construction equipment, lawn mowers, chain saws, generators, etc., etc.,) than about 99% of the energy needed to run all these machines comes from oil (gasoline & diesel primarily).

And as far as you being for fracking and NG extraction that's great, but only an idiot would be against such things.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 08-12-17, 01:57 PM
domi domi is offline
All Region
 
Join Date: 09-06-16
Posts: 257
domi is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWMCinci View Post
We should take advantage of Yucca Mountain for long-term and interim storage. We could also use spent fuel rods to build the wall along the southern border. That should make it a little more worthy of avoiding.

Maybe instead of investing billions in unproven green technologies, we spend billions to figure out the best way to clean and recycle spent nuclear rods. Maybe instead of space we shoot them into the core of the planet. Since they produce heat through radioactive decay, maybe we find a 2nd life for them in utilizing the heat.
Yes, yes, and more yes.

I can't find the article I read but a company figured out a way to take used fuel rods and process them again through a specific type of reactor and render them almost inert. Until then bury the things in the mountain.

If that doesn't work at least spread the research dollars between green and fission and fusion.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 08-12-17, 03:44 PM
SWMCinci SWMCinci is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-20-07
Location: Outside of Ohio..... Now
Posts: 16,501
SWMCinci is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerPaw View Post
What drives oil prices down are alternative fuel choices, not greater reliance. Spare me the drill baby drill bs. We don't set oil prices. When OPEC charges $100 guess what? Exxon does too, very happily. What were all the phucking oil experts and innovators of the last adm. doing while you were getting raped? Laughing all the way to the bank.
Alternative fuel doesn't drive down the price unless it can be used in those same devices. If you have to build an entirely new infrastructure to manage and distribute the alternative fuel AND the consumption requires new equipment and technology..... that ain't driving the cost down. It boils down to supply and demand, make more supply available and decrease demand and the price goes down. If alternative fuels are used in 10% of devices and supply is cut by 20% - what happens to the price? If the cost of alternatives is $30 and OPEC increases production by 50%, how many people are going to buy alternatives?

We actually do help set prices in a major way. OPEC charges $100 when demand justifies it, do you think if OPEC had people buying at $100 that they'd be selling at $50 today? Now, if they were willing to cut production by 50-60% they might do it, but if we've got capacity to increase production and can take up the slack it might stay at $50 or maybe $75.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 08-12-17, 04:32 PM
eastisbest eastisbest is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-27-06
Posts: 16,483
eastisbest will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWMCinci View Post
OPEC charges $100 when demand justifies it, .


I think Supply and demand long ago exited the building regards OPEC, don't you? OPEC charges $100 if that's going to create a social/political environment of their choosing. They can't find enough ways to waste the money they've got. Anyone with such a surplus of money, controlled by so few can ignore market theory. This ain't Wall St.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 08-12-17, 05:32 PM
SWMCinci SWMCinci is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-20-07
Location: Outside of Ohio..... Now
Posts: 16,501
SWMCinci is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastisbest View Post


I think Supply and demand long ago exited the building regards OPEC, don't you? OPEC charges $100 if that's going to create a social/political environment of their choosing. They can't find enough ways to waste the money they've got. Anyone with such a surplus of money, controlled by so few can ignore market theory. This ain't Wall St.
Actually, if you looked at the oil markets S&D is largely responsible for the current price of oil as several countries are trying to prop up or expand their economies by expanding production (Russia, Canada, US, and Indonesia). The sustained drop in oil prices and OPECs decision to cut production to try to stem the price erosion is causing severe problems in several OPEC nations such as Venezuela and Iran. Many Arab nations are drawing down their massive cash reserves in order to maintain their economies while producing less oil and receiving less money for that oil.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 08-12-17, 05:51 PM
eastisbest eastisbest is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-27-06
Posts: 16,483
eastisbest will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWMCinci View Post
Actually, if you looked at the oil markets S&D is largely responsible for the current price of oil as several countries are trying to prop up or expand their economies by expanding production (Russia, Canada, US, and Indonesia). The sustained drop in oil prices and OPECs decision to cut production to try to stem the price erosion is causing severe problems in several OPEC nations such as Venezuela and Iran. Many Arab nations are drawing down their massive cash reserves in order to maintain their economies while producing less oil and receiving less money for that oil.
The bold face pretty much supports my contention that OPEC's decisions are NOT driven by demand and it's those massive cash reserves that let them do it, no? I think that contradicts your first sentence. They choose the price to meet their poltical and social desires.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 08-12-17, 06:14 PM
SWMCinci SWMCinci is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-20-07
Location: Outside of Ohio..... Now
Posts: 16,501
SWMCinci is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastisbest View Post
The bold face pretty much supports my contention that OPEC's decisions are NOT driven by demand and it's those massive cash reserves that let them do it, no? I think that contradicts your first sentence. They choose the price to meet their poltical and social desires.
OPECs actions are absolutely driven by demand, demand dropped and other suppliers entered the market creating an oversupply. OPEC couldn't charge as much as they were so they reduced the their supply to match the new realities........ If there is a classic example of Supply and Demand that is it.

They can't "choose" the price, they can "choose" how much oil they want to supply at the current price and they can "choose" to manipulate supply to manipulate the price, but that's not the same as choosing a price. Any commodity is tied to supply and demand. When there is less gold available the price goes up, if DeBeers suddenly put every diamond in inventory on the market they would be priced like K-Mart goldfish.

You do understand that attempting to control the supply is NOT the same as dictating price don't you?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:16 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Registration Booster - Powered By Dirt RIF CustUmz