Big Fight Brewing Over Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Results - Page 5 - SLUniverse Forums
Navigation » SLUniverse Forums > Off Topic Discussion > Politics, Religion & Society » Big Fight Brewing Over Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Results


Politics, Religion & Society Topics pertaining to politics, religion, philosophy, and social issues. Not for the faint of heart. Also, do not post while drunk, suffering from food poisoning, or while on a low carb diet. You have been warned.

 
Sponsor:
Lionheart Virtual Estate - Experience the Difference!
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-31-2011, 03:42 PM   #101 (permalink)
Script Kitty
 
Jahar Aabye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Between our dreams and actions, lies this world
Posts: 11,033
SL Join Date: 2/16/2007
Business: Black Operations
Client: Singularity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigs View Post
So we (US, Europe, whatever) will, as you said, turn our infrastructure inside out while there is still cheap energy available for the rest of the world to enjoy?

That's the fundamental problem with trying to force the issue before it's justified economically. You wind up in a situation where you need a powerful central world government in order to force it. Maybe that sounds appealing to some, but not to me.

To some extent you are right that the short-term economic calculus would mean that changing our infrastructure would be disadvantageous.

However, consider the massive economic advantage that those countries that do quickly shift their infrastructure to renewable sources will hold in the future. After all, look at the developing world, one major common theme is a lack of infrastructure. There's famine despite plenty of open land because nobody's bothered to set up an irrigation system, and where there is farming, there aren't roads to allow the farmers to sell crops to people in larger towns. When a malaria vaccine becomes feasible, that will only be half the battle because of how difficult it will be to actually distribute.

And yet some people still criticize and protest when the IMF requires that its loans be spent on development of infrastructure. They ask why they should demand this when that loan could buy enough food to feed people there for the next year. And the answer is obvious: because over the next decade, this will save orders of magnitude more lives.

The answer is the same with regards to renewable energy. The infrastructure will inevitably determine the economic winners and losers. Who gets to be the US and who gets to be Zimbabwe next century?

But you are also correct in that Global Warming (or Climate Change or whatever the hell terminology you want to use) is inevitably a market failure. Environmental issues involve public goods and affect parties who are not necessarily involved in the market transactions. It's important to remember, though, that the parties involved in the transactions are also likely to be affected.

Now, it's true that one major problem with emissions controls like the Kyoto Protocols is that they restrict emissions in developed countries while not restricting emissions in developing countries that are already becoming serious contributors to carbon emissions. Absolutely that is a problem. Carbon emission currently is a byproduct of economic development, and so cutting carbon emissions, at the moment, often requires cutting economic development, or at least making such development less efficient.

But that's all the more reason to invest in infrastructure, because it makes cutting emissions far less costly in the long run.

Unless you like the thought of being reliant upon sail ships as everyone else is developing dreadnoughts?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ava Glasgow
But I cannot take your arguments seriously when you back them up with links to ridiculously bad information. It's not bad because I disagree with it, it's bad because it really is bad. These sites demonstrate zero knowledge of the science they are discussing, they link almost exclusively to other non-information, and when they DO link to an authoritative source, they misrepresent what the source actually says.
Jahar Aabye is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Said Thanks :
1 User Agreed:
Old 10-31-2011, 03:49 PM   #102 (permalink)
Senior Meanie

*SLU Supporter*
 
Beebo Brink's Avatar
Head of the SLU Troll Tax Administration
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 17,010
My Mood:
SL Join Date: October 2006
Client: Firestorm

Awards: 1
The 2 Millionth Post Award 
The only "hysteria" about global climate change is in the same popular media that foments the hysterical skeptics. Scientists posting the research are -- as most scientists -- a rather sober lot who speak drily about data and predictive models and bicker over the details in venues that are ignored by amateurs, who prefer to wallow in blogs and pass along "information" from unattributed sources. Or worse yet, pass along misinformation with attributions no one ever bothers to read -- if they did, they'd see the misinformation was based on ignorant misinterpretations of the science.

As noted in the video series I keep hyping, some eco-activists are just as politically motivated and often scientifically ignorant as their opposition. That they "support" global warming has as much to do with their agendas as any real understanding of the science literature. Consersely, those long lists of names of scientists who dispute global climate change are stuffed with the opinions of people who don't specialize in climate physics. Asking a metallurgist's stance on global warming makes as much sense as asking your dermatoligist to conduct brain surgery; hello! not his specialty.

Among the people who actuall study climate and do original research and publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals, the consensus concerning the central aspects of global warming and the anthropo-centric forcings is very high. And it's not hysterical.

Even if we all were completely convinced of the authenticity of the research, that would not lead to any clear solutions. What we can DO about global climate change -- whether it can be reversed and how -- is still a matter for conjecture. That makes the road ahead that much harder.
__________________
"Don't post dickishly if you can't take the pushback, cupcake." -- Roxy Couturier

"Didn't you know that only a fashion blog could create this much chaos? They are the Large Hadron Colliders of SL drama." -- Arilynn


Last edited by Beebo Brink; 10-31-2011 at 03:55 PM.
Beebo Brink is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Thanks:
2 Users Like This:
Old 10-31-2011, 04:17 PM   #103 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Jura Shepherd's Avatar
Smash-Mode
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,207
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 04/20/2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jahar Aabye View Post
To some extent you are right that the short-term economic calculus would mean that changing our infrastructure would be disadvantageous.
If we had unlimited fund and manpower to change infrastructures right this moment, do we even have the knowledge to do it in a way guarantees results?

It seems like everyone is all about the science when it comes to concluding that something must be done, but the obsession with "science" seems to end on the solution side. Sorry, after the fear-fest that was the War on Terror, I'm a bit cynical of the notion that handing over dollars and power to government is a practical and efficient solution to anything other than lining the pockets of politician's brother-in-laws and such.
Jura Shepherd is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
Old 10-31-2011, 04:25 PM   #104 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Amity Slade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,638
Science isn't perfectly accurate, scientific consensuses still get things wrong, there is enough money floating around to motivate at least some scientists to try a little harder to produce the results that bring in the grants.

However, the consequences of the false negative seem a so much more severe than the consequences of the false positive that I would be inclined to play it safe.

Riding a bike instead of driving for short trips is inconvenient (though good for the heart); carpooling for long commutes is inconvenient (though it does safe a chunk of change on gas money). Getting off my ass to actually shut down home electronics when not in use is inconvenient. Sorting the recyclables is inconvenient (it cuts into computer gaming time for sure).

However, I'd rather suffer those inconveniences now and learn I later did not need to, rather than to conveniently ignore the consequences of my consumption and later find out I've done permanent, irreversible damage to the environment.

I'm not a climatologist, but there are a few things I notice just based on personal perception. I know that a lot of these nice technological things we build generate a lot of heat. The desk computer in my bedroom actually serves as an effective space heater. I don't need a thermostat to measure the temperature levels in my room, I can casually feel how my room goes from cool to warm from the time I turn it on until the late hours when I should be turning it off to get to bed. And that's just a little desk computer, that's not a huge factory. I've had the misfortune of breathing in car exhaust- that's not comfortable, that makes me choke. Car exhaust doesn't anymore have that brown color it seems it used to have all the time, but I can still see it if I'm close enough and watch it go up into the air.

That heat, that exhaust, doesn't just magically take a portal to another dimension of existence. It goes somewhere, it does something. I'm hoping we do eventually figure out that all the energy production and all the things we think are pollutants turn out to be no big deal. I really hope that, I hope that all the man-made global warming stuff turns out to be wrong. But to think that it doesn't have any effect on the environment is just to ignore some plain old personal observation and application of common sense.

We shouldn't be implementing all this new technology as fast as we can until there is absolute certainty that it has a harmful side-effect. We should be waiting to implement all this new technology until we have some confidence that it has no harmful side-effects.
__________________
"You can't simply know something by assembling a committee of words!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
Amity Slade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 04:34 PM   #105 (permalink)
state of non-being

*SLU Supporter*
 
Amber Guity's Avatar
The maple kind?
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,953
My Mood:
Client: Firestorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jura Shepherd View Post
If we had unlimited fund and manpower to change infrastructures right this moment, do we even have the knowledge to do it in a way guarantees results?

It seems like everyone is all about the science when it comes to concluding that something must be done, but the obsession with "science" seems to end on the solution side. Sorry, after the fear-fest that was the War on Terror, I'm a bit cynical of the notion that handing over dollars and power to government is a practical and efficient solution to anything other than lining the pockets of politician's brother-in-laws and such.
You seem to be saying that since we don't have a definite answer as to what should be done, we shouldn't even try? We shouldn't divert tax dollars from the oil and gas industries into finding alternatives? The pockets of government have been funneling money into research for multitudes of technologies for decades. Why single out this particular subject to say no on?
__________________
I used to be with it until they changed what "it" was.
Amber Guity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 04:39 PM   #106 (permalink)
Provincial Sharia-slun
 
Casey Pelous's Avatar
Jesus is coming. Look busy!
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 6,653
My Mood:
SL Join Date: August 21, 2007
Client: Anything But 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jahar Aabye View Post
...
The answer is the same with regards to renewable energy. The infrastructure will inevitably determine the economic winners and losers. Who gets to be the US and who gets to be Zimbabwe next century?...
Given the present state of affairs in the US:

1). No articulated vision for the energy future beyond, "I dunno, seems like solar's a nice idea ..."

2). Dwindling investment in education and a growing anti-science theocratic movement.

3) A government whose discourse consists mostly of "No, YOU!"

4) A treasury depleted by a decade of utterly pointless wars.

5) A populace apparently unwilling to pay for even the most basic government services, much less a massive investment in the future.

It is pretty clear to me who won't be "the US."
__________________
"I am not more than a lossy Human being, and think that we all are equals..." - Wasted Engineer


U.S. Only
Casey Pelous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 05:07 PM   #107 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Jura Shepherd's Avatar
Smash-Mode
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,207
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 04/20/2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amber Guity View Post
Why single out this particular subject to say no on?
I'm not. I'm for holding government accountable regardless of whatever horror they happen to be saving us from. I may be a kook, but I'm pretty consistent on that.
Jura Shepherd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 06:16 PM   #108 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
DanielRavenNest's Avatar
The Doomsday Clock now stands at 21 seconds to Midnight
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: In UR Internetz
Posts: 5,923
My Mood:
SL Join Date: Jun 27, 2006
Client: 7 of them (I like testing)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beebo Brink View Post
Currently, the infrastructure that manufactures all those lovely green technology pieces like solar panels is solidly based on oil consumption. You can make enough solar panels to blanket the entire US but if you're producing them from plants that run on traditional machinery using traditional finite-resource energy sources and you distribute them on trucks or even by rail, we're still facing a very uncomfortable future.
Well, coal too, since half the electricity in the US comes from coal. But First Solar's thin film cells have an "Energy Pay Back Time" of 0.8 years. That's how long they take to produce as much energy as went into them. So after that you are ahead, and the cells last around 20 years. The goal has to be to install alternative energy faster than the expected depletion date for fossil fuels.
DanielRavenNest is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
Old 10-31-2011, 06:30 PM   #109 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
DanielRavenNest's Avatar
The Doomsday Clock now stands at 21 seconds to Midnight
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: In UR Internetz
Posts: 5,923
My Mood:
SL Join Date: Jun 27, 2006
Client: 7 of them (I like testing)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perphides View Post
And yet there is ENORMOUS money in the AGW scam. Look at Solyndra, look at Al Gore's shameless profiteering (estimated in excess of $600 million), look at the huge sums of research money funneled from taxpayers to AGW alarmist researchers... billions upon billions of dollars, all told.
[Citation Needed]

I find Al Gore's net worth estimated to be $100 million. So either you exaggerate, or he does really badly with his investments.

[Citation Needed]

Please list the research grants given to "alarmist researchers", which I assume is a separate category from "reasonable researchers".

A personal note:

I think you have gone past the limits of reasonable discussion, and into the realms of shilling for the right wing, but that's not surprising. You have stated you live in New York City, and work at a trading desk. Therefore it is likely you are one of the Wall Street 1% who is fearful for their jobs, or you work for them. You are one of THEM, and we are on to you.
DanielRavenNest is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
Old 10-31-2011, 06:35 PM   #110 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
DanielRavenNest's Avatar
The Doomsday Clock now stands at 21 seconds to Midnight
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: In UR Internetz
Posts: 5,923
My Mood:
SL Join Date: Jun 27, 2006
Client: 7 of them (I like testing)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer Graves View Post
And how many hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars are involved from the fossil fuels industry?

Also, you're really milking that whole Solyndra thing, aren't you?
It's called a distraction. Pay no attention to the neat new method of extracting oil (fracking) that poisons ground water. No, pay attention to that startup that went belly up, like 80% of startups historically do.
DanielRavenNest is offline   Reply With Quote
3 Users Agreed:
Old 10-31-2011, 06:45 PM   #111 (permalink)
Banned

*SLU Supporter*
Tebowing
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The Big City
Posts: 1,304
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 2/10/07
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielRavenNest View Post
[Citation Needed]

I find Al Gore's net worth estimated to be $100 million. So either you exaggerate, or he does really badly with his investments.
NYTimes: Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor

Ingraham and Morano Expose Gore's Global Warming Profit Motive

Telegraph UK: Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielRavenNest View Post
[Citation Needed]

Please list the research grants given to "alarmist researchers", which I assume is a separate category from "reasonable researchers".
Taking the Money for Grant(ed)

Peddling global warming fears puts big money in pockets of climate researchers

$100 Million in Grant Money Available For Global Warming Research

Scientists are Afraid to Debate Global Warming for Fear of Losing Federal Grants
Perphides is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 06:57 PM   #112 (permalink)
Banned

*SLU Supporter*
Tebowing
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The Big City
Posts: 1,304
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 2/10/07
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer Graves View Post
And how many hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars are involved from the fossil fuels industry?

Also, you're really milking that whole Solyndra thing, aren't you?
LOL.. you can't really be serious, can you? You actually think that the fossil fuels industry is diverting HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars to anti-AGW research? Do you have any idea of the scope that is? Even $200 billion would represent the gross margin on more than $1.3trillion of oil and gas revenues... a fantastic sum. You need to knock (more than) a few zeroes off that number and then try again.

Hundreds of billions funding anti-AGW research... OMW, that's laughable.

As to Solyndra, it was one of many many many outright frauds and scams financed with your tax dollars and my tax dollars. If you really gave a damn about alternative energy, and seeing a healthy market develop for it, you'd be as furious as I am about it. More so, in fact, because it's reckless interventions like this that destroy innovation and retard progress.

When the govt funded the Solyndra scam, that meant that some real company who didn't have Democrat friends in high places had to compete with government money for employees, equipment, and market share. The innovator/inventor with the solution to our energy crisis may have been discouraged from entering the market, thanks to the Solyndra scam.

So are you phoney baloney, or do you really want to see alternative energy production flourish?
Perphides is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Laughed:
Old 10-31-2011, 07:02 PM   #113 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
DanielRavenNest's Avatar
The Doomsday Clock now stands at 21 seconds to Midnight
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: In UR Internetz
Posts: 5,923
My Mood:
SL Join Date: Jun 27, 2006
Client: 7 of them (I like testing)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perphides View Post
I don't see anything that says his net worth is $600M, just that he's a partner in Kleiner Perkins, a venture capital fund worth many billions. His personal share is tiny.

And you didn't list grants given to "alarmist researchers", just totals for climate research. Or are you claiming that *every* climate researcher is "alarmist"?

Oh, and newspaper stories are secondary sources that often get things wrong. Only suitable for bird cage linings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perphides View Post
Hundreds of billions funding anti-AGW research... OMW, that's laughable.
No, he was implying that was the total worth of the oil industry, but you are too thick to see that.

Meanwhile the Oil industry spent half a billion dollars in 2009-2010 on lobbying Washington.

Last edited by DanielRavenNest; 10-31-2011 at 07:11 PM.
DanielRavenNest is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Said Thanks :
Old 10-31-2011, 08:27 PM   #114 (permalink)
Waffenträger
 
Richie Waves's Avatar
"jon" he does it!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Offaly, Republic of Ireland
Posts: 17,761
SL Join Date: 27/06/2005
Client: Phoenix & imprudence
Why is climate gate still mentioned by the AGW puppets everywhere.. it was put to bed... yet in every comments section you see some muppet bleating about the climate gate "revelations". They really do think that if they don't hear about it, it doesn't exist? like babies covering their little eyes... JFC it's really sad.

they're the same muppets who were saying lead in paint isn't bad and smokes dont cause cancer... thankfully they will look as stupid as them in a few years.
Richie Waves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 09:17 PM   #115 (permalink)
Resident
 
Sio Skytower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA: East Coast
Posts: 25
My Mood:
Send a message via Yahoo to Sio Skytower
I think Perphides likes the attention
Sio Skytower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 09:31 PM   #116 (permalink)
SUPER BANNED

*SLU Supporter*
 
Free Xue's Avatar
Magic mushroom. Get it?
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 38,215
My Mood:
SL Join Date: May, 2008
Blog Entries: 10

Awards: 2
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Participant Special Achievement in Thread Titling 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sio Skytower View Post
I think Perphides likes the attention
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cristiano View Post
you are all trolls (and super gay too!)
[confused cats against feminism]
la lucha sigue...
Free Xue is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Yay!:
Old 10-31-2011, 09:31 PM   #117 (permalink)
state of non-being

*SLU Supporter*
 
Amber Guity's Avatar
The maple kind?
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,953
My Mood:
Client: Firestorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perphides View Post

When the govt funded the Solyndra scam, that meant that some real company who didn't have Democrat friends in high places had to compete with government money for employees, equipment, and market share. The innovator/inventor with the solution to our energy crisis may have been discouraged from entering the market, thanks to the Solyndra scam.

So are you phoney baloney, or do you really want to see alternative energy production flourish?
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/31/tech....htm?iid=HP_LN

Oh look, a "real" company that also got a loan went under.

What don't you understand about businesses failing at high rates is NORMAL?
Amber Guity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 09:58 PM   #118 (permalink)
SLERPee
 
jacqueline trudeau's Avatar
suffers from a rockin' pneumonia
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Shantytown
Posts: 8,504
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 07/15/2005
Business: Trudeau Classic Sailing Yachts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueline trudeau View Post
But, but, but.... Al Gore!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perphides View Post
look at Al Gore's shameless profiteering
What did I tell you? If Pavlov's dog had a dog, it would be like Perphides.
__________________
Trudeau Classic Sailing Yachts
jacqueline trudeau is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Laughed:
Old 10-31-2011, 10:04 PM   #119 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
DanielRavenNest's Avatar
The Doomsday Clock now stands at 21 seconds to Midnight
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: In UR Internetz
Posts: 5,923
My Mood:
SL Join Date: Jun 27, 2006
Client: 7 of them (I like testing)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perphides View Post
As to Solyndra, it was one of many many many outright frauds and scams financed with your tax dollars and my tax dollars.
Oh look, former Governor of New Jersey, and Goldman Sachs executive stole $700 M from his customers:

Regulators Investigating MF Global for Missing Money - NYTimes.com

Yeah, sure, business is much cleaner than government.
DanielRavenNest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 10:07 PM   #120 (permalink)
SUPER BANNED

*SLU Supporter*
 
Free Xue's Avatar
Magic mushroom. Get it?
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 38,215
My Mood:
SL Join Date: May, 2008
Blog Entries: 10

Awards: 2
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Participant Special Achievement in Thread Titling 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueline trudeau View Post
What did I tell you? If Pavlov's dog had a dog, it would be like Perphides.
Free Xue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 10:21 PM   #121 (permalink)
Backroom Bureaucrat
 
Gigs's Avatar
Not troll; Possibly Orc
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,191

Awards: 1
Thread Title of the Week 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tardigrade View Post
we have yet to figure out how to manufacture green energy solutions without using any oil.
That's OK. Simple economics prevents any sort of serious "bootstrapping" issues. There is plenty of oil left in the ground at the point where it becomes no longer viable as an energy source. It's not like a gas tank running out of gas, there's oodles of oil with varying difficulties and costs of extraction.

We'll just have to spend more energy to get it out of the ground than we would get from burning it. At that point it will be far too precious for anyone to think about burning it for fuel anyway.

Think of it this way, we probably can't make green energy sources without aluminum or steel, and it costs us lots in terms of energy to extract those resources. If oil no longer is viable as an energy source, it just becomes a base commodity the same as steel.
__________________
-
-
"It is the paramount duty of governments and of politicians to secure the wellbeing of the community under the case in the present, and not to run risks overmuch for the future" - JM Keynes
Gigs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 10:24 PM   #122 (permalink)
Backroom Bureaucrat
 
Gigs's Avatar
Not troll; Possibly Orc
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,191

Awards: 1
Thread Title of the Week 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amber Guity View Post
What don't you understand about businesses failing at high rates is NORMAL?
Hah, tell that to everyone with a failed small business that blames "wal-mart" or "the economy".
Gigs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 10:48 PM   #123 (permalink)
Banned

*SLU Supporter*
Tebowing
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The Big City
Posts: 1,304
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 2/10/07
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielRavenNest View Post
Oh look, former Governor of New Jersey, and Goldman Sachs executive stole $700 M from his customers:

Regulators Investigating MF Global for Missing Money - NYTimes.com

Yeah, sure, business is much cleaner than government.
I was gonna post about that. Jon Corzine, big-government liberal Democrat. He supports every single thing I'm against. Imagine the damage he did to New Jersey when he was running it and being supported by the Democrat Party. He is exactly the sort of politically connected insider who the OWS crowd should be against, but aren't.

Coincidentally, he was defeated by Chris Christie, who's been doing a pretty good job cleaning up the mess left by Corzine and his band of (Democrat) thieves. To be evenhanded, I watch Boardwalk Empire, so I know Republicans in New Jersey haven't been much less corrupt.. only that none of them have been in office for 80 years. I know Christie is a frequent target of the liberal press.. ironic, isn't it?

Last edited by Perphides; 10-31-2011 at 10:54 PM.
Perphides is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Laughed:
Old 10-31-2011, 10:58 PM   #124 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Tracer Graves's Avatar
meaniehead
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,760
My Mood:

Awards: 1
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Participant 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perphides View Post
LOL.. you can't really be serious, can you? You actually think that the fossil fuels industry is diverting HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars to anti-AGW research? Do you have any idea of the scope that is? Even $200 billion would represent the gross margin on more than $1.3trillion of oil and gas revenues... a fantastic sum. You need to knock (more than) a few zeroes off that number and then try again.

Hundreds of billions funding anti-AGW research... OMW, that's laughable.
It's laughable because that's not what I said, you fucking dolt. There are definitely hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars worth of profits hinging upon our energy policy. You don't think massive fossil fuel companies don't want to squeeze every last cent out of their resources? If there is any political interest being played in regard to climate science

Quote:
As to Solyndra, it was one of many many many outright frauds and scams financed with your tax dollars and my tax dollars. If you really gave a damn about alternative energy, and seeing a healthy market develop for it, you'd be as furious as I am about it. More so, in fact, because it's reckless interventions like this that destroy innovation and retard progress.
I'm not happy about it at all. It wastes money, and even worse, gives fucktards like you ammunition for horrible policy stances.

Quote:
When the govt funded the Solyndra scam, that meant that some real company who didn't have Democrat friends in high places had to compete with government money for employees, equipment, and market share. The innovator/inventor with the solution to our energy crisis may have been discouraged from entering the market, thanks to the Solyndra scam.
I'm not arguing with you Solyndra, dumbass. I'm just saying that you're milking it for every last drop and it's laughable the ways you try to apply it to your arguments.

Quote:
So are you phoney baloney, or do you really want to see alternative energy production flourish?
Yes, I really want to see alternative energy flourish. I want a whole slew of policy changes to be put into place. Hell, I wouldn't even mind seeing a nationalization of the energy industry since it affects us all. I haven't really thought out all the implications of that, but something needs to happen because the corporations are steering us off a cliff called peak-oil.

Also, I'd like to reiterate the fact that I've never disagreed with you about the fact that Solyndra is a genuine, bona-fide scandal. It's just not on the scale you try to play it. Sorry, but you can't use it for everything.
__________________

Last edited by Tracer Graves; 10-31-2011 at 11:04 PM.
Tracer Graves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 11:00 PM   #125 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
DanielRavenNest's Avatar
The Doomsday Clock now stands at 21 seconds to Midnight
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: In UR Internetz
Posts: 5,923
My Mood:
SL Join Date: Jun 27, 2006
Client: 7 of them (I like testing)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigs View Post
That's OK. Simple economics prevents any sort of serious "bootstrapping" issues. There is plenty of oil left in the ground at the point where it becomes no longer viable as an energy source. It's not like a gas tank running out of gas, there's oodles of oil with varying difficulties and costs of extraction.
There are also competing ways of making liquid hydrocarbons, such as genetically engineered cyanobacteria. If the cost of getting out of the ground becomes higher than the cost of growing it, we will grow it instead. As you say, there are just some absurdly cheap sources of oil from the ground at the moment, in some cases just a few dollars per barrel.

Meanwhile, solar panel prices are under $1.30/watt: http://solarbuzz.com/facts-and-figur.../module-prices
In a sunny location, you get about 6 hours of sunlight per day, or 2190 hours a year. 1 watt x 2190 hours = 2.19 kWh. To pick a random sunny power rate (Tuscon, AZ) of $0.11/kWh, the power generated is worth $0.24 per year. So the bare panel pays for itself in 5.4 years. Note, that does not include the cost of the inverter, and installation. The point is that solar is starting to get competitive, even without subsidies.

Last edited by DanielRavenNest; 10-31-2011 at 11:15 PM.
DanielRavenNest is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Yay!:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On