Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
20 hours ago, Aristides said:

 

The planet will survive, that doesn't mean humans and their society will.

So what's increasing it now genius?

I don't claim to be any kind of genius but having read enough of your posts in here, you also clearly do not fall into that category.

“The burning of fossil fuels is destabilizing the very foundations of life on the planet.” (An actual quotation from a recent Canadian newspaper opinion piece.)

No, actually the burning of fossil fuels has radically improved the foundations of life on this planet. It has given us safe and inexpensive lighting, heating, cooling, refrigeration, transportation, electricity generation, construction, food production, and just about everything else we depend on for our standard of living. To the extent it has also caused a slight warming of the atmosphere due to CO2, that clearly has not turned the whole thing into a net loss. Weighing the costs and benefits together there is simply no question fossil fuel use has served to benefit humanity greatly.

 

Fossil fuel-driven economic growth over the past 30 years has pushed us to the brink of a global climate catastrophe.

If the small amount of warming we have experienced were such a catastrophe, why has everything gotten so much better? Fossil fuel-driven prosperity has cut extreme poverty around the world by nearly two-thirds, allowed us to dramatically increase food production and cut hunger and malnutrition around the world, spread access to electricity to billions of people on every continent, cut child mortality in half, and added 7 years to average life expectancy. If you could have prevented the fossil fuel use at the cost of never having experienced all this progress, would you have done so?

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell

Posted
3 minutes ago, ironstone said:

I don't claim to be any kind of genius but having read enough of your posts in here, you also clearly do not fall into that category.

“The burning of fossil fuels is destabilizing the very foundations of life on the planet.” (An actual quotation from a recent Canadian newspaper opinion piece.)

No, actually the burning of fossil fuels has radically improved the foundations of life on this planet. It has given us safe and inexpensive lighting, heating, cooling, refrigeration, transportation, electricity generation, construction, food production, and just about everything else we depend on for our standard of living. To the extent it has also caused a slight warming of the atmosphere due to CO2, that clearly has not turned the whole thing into a net loss. Weighing the costs and benefits together there is simply no question fossil fuel use has served to benefit humanity greatly.

 

Fossil fuel-driven economic growth over the past 30 years has pushed us to the brink of a global climate catastrophe.

If the small amount of warming we have experienced were such a catastrophe, why has everything gotten so much better? Fossil fuel-driven prosperity has cut extreme poverty around the world by nearly two-thirds, allowed us to dramatically increase food production and cut hunger and malnutrition around the world, spread access to electricity to billions of people on every continent, cut child mortality in half, and added 7 years to average life expectancy. If you could have prevented the fossil fuel use at the cost of never having experienced all this progress, would you have done so?

Fossil fuel has clearly had its uses, but now it's time to use that wealth to move on to much better energy production before it makes the planet unlivable.

Just like we no longer use paddle wheels on a river to power industrial machinery. ?

Posted
2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Fossil fuel has clearly had its uses, but now it's time to use that wealth to move on to much better energy production before it makes the planet unlivable.

Just like we no longer use paddle wheels on a river to power industrial machinery. ?

And the "much better energy production" is...wind and solar?

Say it ain't so!?

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell

Posted
3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Fossil fuel has clearly had its uses, but now it's time to use that wealth to move on to much better energy production before it makes the planet unlivable.

Just like we no longer use paddle wheels on a river to power industrial machinery. ?

The problem is some are trying to rush the change the alternatives are not yet ready, the fossil fuel conglomerates have gone in a ensured that they own the patents for most alternative fuel ideas to slow down their development. It is a sound business strategy if a horrible ethical one.  How can your product be replaced if you own all the patents for its replacement?

Posted
6 minutes ago, ironstone said:

And the "much better energy production" is...wind and solar?

Say it ain't so!?

Do you LIKE POLLUTION? People die from fossil fuel pollution.

When we can produce energy without pollution, so much better!

Posted
6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Do you LIKE POLLUTION? People die from fossil fuel pollution.

When we can produce energy without pollution, so much better!

I'm in favour of nuclear energy, but 99% of the climate change zealots say no way!

Nobody likes pollution but I must point out that Canada and the US are cleaner than say...China. It may make you uncomfortable when I criticize China (darling of the left) but they are the largest emitter.

You ducked the question; you want us to go almost exclusively with wind and solar?

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell

Posted
14 minutes ago, ironstone said:

I'm in favour of nuclear energy, but 99% of the climate change zealots say no way!

Nobody likes pollution but I must point out that Canada and the US are cleaner than say...China. It may make you uncomfortable when I criticize China (darling of the left) but they are the largest emitter.

You ducked the question; you want us to go almost exclusively with wind and solar?

Not necessarily. Grimsby wind farm is claiming 98% reliability, but that is probably on the very high side of feasible.

We'll need SOME backup from nuclear, hydro, and fossil fuels. At least until storage is more practical.

Posted
1 hour ago, robosmith said:

 

 

Anthony Watts is NOT a climate scientist he a blogger "who opposes the scientific consensus." From his wikipedia:

About

Description

Willard Anthony Watts is an American blogger who runs Watts Up With That?, a popular climate change denial blog that opposes the scientific consensus on climate change. Wikipedia

This has been argued on here for literally decades.  Every once in awhile trolls pop up and start rehashing arguments they read from years ago.  What' interesting is that most of them now admit the temperatures are rising.

Posted
1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

This has been argued on here for literally decades.  Every once in awhile trolls pop up and start rehashing arguments they read from years ago.  What' interesting is that most of them now admit the temperatures are rising.

Yeah but so what, temperatures have gone up before dontcha know?

?

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
27 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Not necessarily. Grimsby wind farm is claiming 98% reliability, but that is probably on the very high side of feasible.

We'll need SOME backup from nuclear, hydro, and fossil fuels. At least until storage is more practical.

Wind Farms consume huge amounts of oil to lubricate those turbines as I said earlier the alternatives are not ready. It is going to take years of research that is not hampered by the oil conglomerates or the major car companies. Who would have to re design their entire model lines. 

 

Also no one going to address the effect of Asphalt concrete and glass covering the earth thanks to large cities?

Posted
12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yeah but so what, temperatures have gone up before dontcha know?

?

Let's not and say we did...

The arrogance of these people, who think that because they cut/paste something from a blog that they know more than an entire body of science... that didn't take volcanoes into account... anyway...

  • Like 2
Posted
2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Is there any limit to your ignorance and arrogance?

Carl Sagan - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Carl_Sagan

Carl Edward Sagan was an American astronomer, planetary scientist, cosmologist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist, author, and science communicator.

image.jpeg

Sagan was an incredibly interesting dude and his scientific credentials are undeniable. HIs interests and positions on so many subjects were bound to make him controversial. When Cosmos first came out I was mesmerized, no one had made the universe so interesting and understandable before, or raised questions that we still struggle with today. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

The arrogance of these people, who think that because they cut/paste something from a blog that they know more than an entire body of science... that didn't take volcanoes into account... anyway...

What really wasn't taken into account in early days was just how high and how many other hurdles we'd have blocking progress.  The rise of dictatorships and respectability they've been afforded is probably the worst that comes to mind - on top of the relentlessness of casting climate change as an issue of the economy versus communism and more recently the proliferation of fake news and mistrust of scientific expertise.  These things have taken decades to occur and will take decades to undo.

Like I said the deniers have won hands down.

  • Thanks 1

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted

The only thing political about this is that the USSR was the most polluting and environmentally destructive entity that ever existed. And we're supposed to be smart enough to learn from that....

I was just thinking that if reason10 ever does see the sea level rise with his very own eyes, I hope he's stubborn enough not to run for high grounds with all the extreme left Dems only running out of fear. [quote=Sue Nammi]

Posted

Each wind turbine needs 80 gallons of oil as lubricant and we're not talking about vegetable oil, this is a PAO synthetic oil based on crude... 12,000 gallons of it. That oil needs to be replaced once a year.

This needs to be addressed, the current alternatives are NOT viable. Until we have a viable alternative the moderates are not going to care enough about this to make traction. Lithium batteries which are used in electric cars are actually worse for the environment that fossil fuel consumption.

The fossil fuel problem does need to be addressed, but you can not ignore things like asphalt, concrete and glass in major cities. Which OMG cause climate change. Unless something happened I am not aware of large cities covered in asphalt, concrete, and glass are made by humans; therefore; humans do in fact effect climate change.

Humans build wave breaks to stop water from going to far inland and causing damage. This also effects the climate. Human put out forest fires rather than letting them burn. Want to tell me that does not effect the environment.

Saying human can not effect climate change is a ridiculous untrue statement that anyone with common sense can de bunk. Looky here I just did it.  And with out attacking anyone or any name calling. Tolerance does not just mean being tolerant of your friends it mean being tolerant of your enemies as well.

I do not know what the solution is but science and engineering are tools that can be used to find it. Do  we need a replacement for fossil fuels? Unequivocally YES! Is the emissions thing as bad as they make it out to be? Not really, to much proof that several other factors also contribute just as much or MORE to the rise in global temperature. 

Get over yourselves and grow up; scientific fact in my life time alone the global average temp has risen 2 degrees. That's 4 decades. That is something that usually happens over several centuries.

 

Look it up its true... I'll wait.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Jedi_Master_Tallyn said:

Each wind turbine needs 80 gallons of oil as lubricant and we're not talking about vegetable oil, this is a PAO synthetic oil based on crude... 12,000 gallons of it. That oil needs to be replaced once a year.

This needs to be addressed, the current alternatives are NOT viable. Until we have a viable alternative the moderates are not going to care enough about this to make traction. Lithium batteries which are used in electric cars are actually worse for the environment that fossil fuel consumption.

The fossil fuel problem does need to be addressed, but you can not ignore things like asphalt, concrete and glass in major cities. Which OMG cause climate change. Unless something happened I am not aware of large cities covered in asphalt, concrete, and glass are made by humans; therefore; humans do in fact effect climate change.

Humans build wave breaks to stop water from going to far inland and causing damage. This also effects the climate. Human put out forest fires rather than letting them burn. Want to tell me that does not effect the environment.

Saying human can not effect climate change is a ridiculous untrue statement that anyone with common sense can de bunk. Looky here I just did it.  And with out attacking anyone or any name calling. Tolerance does not just mean being tolerant of your friends it mean being tolerant of your enemies as well.

I do not know what the solution is but science and engineering are tools that can be used to find it. Do  we need a replacement for fossil fuels? Unequivocally YES! Is the emissions thing as bad as they make it out to be? Not really, to much proof that several other factors also contribute just as much or MORE to the rise in global temperature. 

Get over yourselves and grow up; scientific fact in my life time alone the global average temp has risen 2 degrees. That's 4 decades. That is something that usually happens over several centuries.

 

Look it up its true... I'll wait.

What "several other things" that man controls?

You heard about how hot it is on Venus and how much CO2 in the atmosphere?

Posted
13 minutes ago, robosmith said:

What "several other things" that man controls?

You heard about how hot it is on Venus and how much CO2 in the atmosphere?

Well lets see....  Asphalt is man made concrete is man made coal is still used in some places as a viable fuel source. I am not saying that fossil fuel emissions are not the problem try reading the ENTIRE post before calling me out. I merely said saying fossil fuels are not all of the problem and not acknowledging that gives the deniers all the ammunition they need to argue against. Do volcanos cause just a much CO as cars. Yes can we do anything about that. No, but it still happens. Not admitting that SOME of the temperature change comes from all that asphalt concrete and glass the REFLECTS heat BACK into the atmosphere WARMING THE AIR is asking to be de bunked. I pointed out several way HUMANS have caused climate change to debunk what the original poster said but I also acknowledged. That we are no where near a solution to this. Also saying "that man controls" is wrong its HUMANS cause last time I checked their are nearly as many female drivers as male.  I also admitted I do not know what the solution maybe. But I do know what I BELIEVE it is not turbines that used that much oil are not a good replacement lithium batteries are not a good replacement. Fusion or fission? I do not know enough to make a informed decision on that except to say I do not believe we have the safety protocols in place to make that viable. It is going to take time and research. 

And if you want to win over the moderates you need to think like one. More than one way of looking at the problem is correct. People that disagree with are not automatically stupid. It is attitudes like that, that caused President Trump. 

Take a breath and look at the whole argument, admit to stating opinions, and argue your case. And remember ALL of this is theory nothing has been labeled as scientific fact just yet because they have been able to prove otherwise or that you did not account for all of the variables and so the debate rages. 

And like it or not blaming all environmental problems on just fossil fuel is as silly as blaming gun crimes on guns. The reason the lefties CONSTANTLY looses these fights is because you insult anyone that disagrees with you. (you are no better righties) 

And THAT is why the middle is fed up with both of you.

Grow up, will you please.

p.s. Venus really? and you wonder why no one takes your arguments seriously.

Posted
18 minutes ago, Jedi_Master_Tallyn said:

Well lets see....  Asphalt is man made concrete is man made coal is still used in some places as a viable fuel source. I am not saying that fossil fuel emissions are not the problem try reading the ENTIRE post before calling me out. I merely said saying fossil fuels are not all of the problem and not acknowledging that gives the deniers all the ammunition they need to argue against. Do volcanos cause just a much CO as cars. Yes can we do anything about that. No, but it still happens. Not admitting that SOME of the temperature change comes from all that asphalt concrete and glass the REFLECTS heat BACK into the atmosphere WARMING THE AIR is asking to be de bunked. I pointed out several way HUMANS have caused climate change to debunk what the original poster said but I also acknowledged. That we are no where near a solution to this. Also saying "that man controls" is wrong its HUMANS cause last time I checked their are nearly as many female drivers as male.  I also admitted I do not know what the solution maybe. But I do know what I BELIEVE it is not turbines that used that much oil are not a good replacement lithium batteries are not a good replacement. Fusion or fission? I do not know enough to make a informed decision on that except to say I do not believe we have the safety protocols in place to make that viable. It is going to take time and research. 

And if you want to win over the moderates you need to think like one. More than one way of looking at the problem is correct. People that disagree with are not automatically stupid. It is attitudes like that, that caused President Trump. 

Take a breath and look at the whole argument, admit to stating opinions, and argue your case. And remember ALL of this is theory nothing has been labeled as scientific fact just yet because they have been able to prove otherwise or that you did not account for all of the variables and so the debate rages. 

And like it or not blaming all environmental problems on just fossil fuel is as silly as blaming gun crimes on guns. The reason the lefties CONSTANTLY looses these fights is because you insult anyone that disagrees with you. (you are no better righties) 

And THAT is why the middle is fed up with both of you.

Grow up, will you please.

p.s. Venus really? and you wonder why no one takes your arguments seriously.

Venus clearly demonstrates that CO2 can cause extreme warming. Scientists believe that eons ago, Venus was more like Earth.

Arguing FACTS is NOT childish. No one should care about the opinions of people who are ignorant of the facts. They are NOT relevant to the solution.

Posted
2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Arguing FACTS is NOT childish. No one should care about the opinions of people who are ignorant of the facts. They are NOT relevant to the solution.

There is so much wrong with that statement.

1."No one should care about the opinions of people who are.." This is dismissive and belittling their opinion matters it matters most because you disagree with it their for you need to understand it so you can intelligently argue against it and help them come to your way of thinking. 

2. "Arguing FACTS is NOT childish." You are right it isn't ignoring fact you do agree with or that make you point hard to make is. Not like the fact about volcanos because it make it hard to blame fossil fuels does not make it any less a fact. And ignoring it mean they can say you did not account for ALL of the variables.

The opinions of those that disagree with you are the most important opinions out there, the ones that agree with are convinced the ones that aren't need convincing no matter what facts they know or don't belittling them and calling them stupid because they don't know all the facts you do means you do not value them as a person. And you just lost their vote.

I was not aware about the Venus thing sorry about that.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Jedi_Master_Tallyn said:

There is so much wrong with that statement.

1."No one should care about the opinions of people who are.." This is dismissive and belittling their opinion matters it matters most because you disagree with it their for you need to understand it so you can intelligently argue against it and help them come to your way of thinking. 

2. "Arguing FACTS is NOT childish." You are right it isn't ignoring fact you do agree with or that make you point hard to make is. Not like the fact about volcanos because it make it hard to blame fossil fuels does not make it any less a fact. And ignoring it mean they can say you did not account for ALL of the variables.

The opinions of those that disagree with you are the most important opinions out there, the ones that agree with are convinced the ones that aren't need convincing no matter what facts they know or don't belittling them and calling them stupid because they don't know all the facts you do means you do not value them as a person. And you just lost their vote.

I was not aware about the Venus thing sorry about that.

IF my facts are wrong, then I will learn by arguing with people that have the correct facts. Only then will I be relevant to the solution.

Same for anyone else. You're an example. You learned a relevant fact about Venus and CO2 causing warming.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,853
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Beat My Insurance
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Scott75 went up a rank
      Experienced
    • Barquentine earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Barquentine earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Radiorum earned a badge
      Posting Machine
    • Wap75 earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...