IGX

Liberalist conspiracy, solid science, grave threat, no big deal? Just curious.

Can I choose all of the above?

I tend to be torn on how much I believe. If it's real, that sucks, but at least most of my choices are "green". I don't drive much unless I absolutely have to and I'm very conservative with how I use resources. Even if it's fake, what's the drawback to living more conservatively?

Of course, the truck I drive is 14 years old and has 165,000+ miles. It's never failed a smog test, for whatever that's worth, but it probably kicks the local environment square in the teeth when I do start it up.

Not much.

tzg wrote:Liberalist conspiracy, solid science, grave threat, no big deal? Just curious.

I'm not sure, really. I haven't done a lot of research on it.

However a couple things have made me more open to not wasting environment:
- Just finished the Wasatch 100 Mile Run last week in Utah. I've gotten to spend more time running/hiking in the wilderness the past couple years. Some parts of this country are amazing, and even some average-looking places can be pleasant when they're not filled with pollution or people. I've also seen wilderness places that have gotten more polluted, and it really is sad.
- Living in the biggest, but dirtiest city in America. I mean I like it here but some people are disgusting. And the city is to blame for a lot of it too. I honestly think if I were mayor of this city I could clean it up (physically) real well, eliminate waste and keep it pollution-free. Bloomy doesn't know what dirt is because he lives in the cleanest part of the city.

Now, those are random thoughts, but after the above experiences I really can't fault anyone for being 'green'. And even though I'm a libertarian I think protecting the environment is fully compatible with my political views. It's someone's property, after all. The federal government itself contributes a lot to pollution. And there's nothing wrong with enacting some laws that keep people from destroying our surroundings. It only becomes a problem with the regulations become an unreasonable barrier to human progress. Where to draw that line, I'm not sure.


Oh, on a side note I think there are too many people in the world.

How much carbon does it take to feed him?
How much methane does even one of his shits release?

kreator wrote:

tzg wrote:Liberalist conspiracy, solid science, grave threat, no big deal? Just curious.

I'm not sure, really. I haven't done a lot of research on it.

However a couple things have made me more open to not wasting environment:
- Just finished the Wasatch 100 Mile Run last week in Utah. I've gotten to spend more time running/hiking in the wilderness the past couple years. Some parts of this country are amazing, and even some average-looking places can be pleasant when they're not filled with pollution or people. I've also seen wilderness places that have gotten more polluted, and it really is sad.
- Living in the biggest, but dirtiest city in America. I mean I like it here but some people are disgusting. And the city is to blame for a lot of it too. I honestly think if I were mayor of this city I could clean it up (physically) real well, eliminate waste and keep it pollution-free. Bloomy doesn't know what dirt is because he lives in the cleanest part of the city.

Now, those are random thoughts, but after the above experiences I really can't fault anyone for being 'green'. And even though I'm a libertarian I think protecting the environment is fully compatible with my political views. It's someone's property, after all. The federal government itself contributes a lot to pollution. And there's nothing wrong with enacting some laws that keep people from destroying our surroundings. It only becomes a problem with the regulations become an unreasonable barrier to human progress. Where to draw that line, I'm not sure.


Oh, on a side note I think there are too many people in the world.

QFT.

I think that there are natural climate changes that people can't do much about. I also think that one should try to restrict pollution, but not because of global warming.
Notably, the idea global warming has become big buisniess. A lot of of researchers, companies and politicians' livelihood depends on there being a global warming caused by mankind.

The number of wealthy powerful vested interst groups who would LOSE if real action was taken to cbat climate change is and has always been far greater than the imagined "leftist conspiracy" who are going to make all this money from trying to limit our burning up of billions of years worth of stored carbon in a few hundred years.

The problem with "human progress" is that ita highly selective and never ending. So we have a lot of people still in this planet who are dying for lack of clean drinking water and vaccinations. Versus The Kardashians and those seeking to emulate them. Its fucked up. We're never satisfied. Warm place to live? Plenty of healthy food? Clothes? Schools? A nice natural environment? "FUCK THAT WHERE'S MY BIG JEEP MY NEEDLESS CONSUMER BULLSHIT MY DISPOSABLE PLASTIC SHIT MY OTHER CAR MY OTHER HOUSE MY BLAH BLAH BLAH."

Even if global warmin is a conspiracy and all of the top scientists are lying, we'd do better with less. We'd be happier with a rough concept of "sufficient". With a concept of "hand on the planet in better shape than we found it". But then our bullshit magazine-led aspirations might suffer. We might not have the latest couture. Or the bigger car. Or the holiday in Australia. Or the cheap gasoline and the fresh blueberries from Papua New Guinea.

America is way out of step on this because of its culture of mistrust in all things government. The frontiersman mentality of the small stakeholder worshipping his own God and keeping to himself has degenerated into a grotesque fat angry righteous cunt shitting on the planet and screaming at everyone to leave him at it.

kreator wrote: - Living in the biggest, but dirtiest city in America. I mean I like it here but some people are disgusting. And the city is to blame for a lot of it too. I honestly think if I were mayor of this city I could clean it up (physically) real well, eliminate waste and keep it pollution-free. Bloomy doesn't know what dirt is because he lives in the cleanest part of the city.

I left NYC in 1995 and have been back more than enough times and I'm here to tell you that your current NYC is a much nicer place than the NYC I grew-up in. You want to talk about disgusting people? In Harlem, it was commonplace for jigs to sit on the hoods of parked cars (not theirs) while eating chicken wings, Chinese food, nursing 40's, after smoking blunts and pissing on the tires. I know you don't see any of that anymore and you can thank Rudy for it, FWIW.

I haven't been back to Jackson Heights in years, but the last time I was there, it was much nicer than when I grew-up.

Could be happening. Might be caused by Human created CO2. The Science is not being fairly presented. Most of the "Evidence" are supposed secondary effects Other evidence is speculative or based upon computer models that are poorly calibrated and validated.

If Global Warming is a real problem then the cure is up for debate...

Do we use 17th century energy sources - and ask billions to starve - or do we create newer sources and avoid future wars over scarce Fossil fuel sources?


Lots of Elites like 17th Century sources of energy. They can continue their dominance. They even imagine that Marx was right, that Infrastructure determines how a Society operates, and want the World to return to 17th Century politics, with themselves as Royalty.

Elites are threatened by newer sources of Cheap Energy because they cannot control them. They might lose their superior positions. They might become "old money", pushed aside by newer rich people. They might have to work for a living. Can't having that!!

Today's Elites are very effective at shaping debate and buying off Politicians because they control most of the money, most of the Media and through Grants and Foundations bully "researchers" into toeing the line.

Elites have lots of unpaid spokespersons who do their heavy lifting. You can see some of them here, hard at work, doing their Master's bidding. Crusading for 17th Century Sources of Energy because they foolishly refuse to think beyond the narratives and gloom/doom stories.

T E M P O wrote:I think that there are natural climate changes that people can't do much about. I also think that one should try to restrict pollution, but not because of global warming.
Notably, the idea global warming has become big buisniess. A lot of of researchers, companies and politicians' livelihood depends on there being a global warming caused by mankind.

This...

www.us-cap.org


Most of your large Corporate Foundations also push the "Global Warming!" party line. It's good for their Owners.

I'm not sure I get your point about 17th century sources of energy. Are those the global warming advocates, or the global warming denialists?

tzg wrote:I'm not sure I get your point about 17th century sources of energy. Are those the global warming advocates, or the global warming denialists?

Many of the people who think that Human Caused Global Warming is both real and an emergency want "sustainable" sources of energy. All of these were used in the 17th century. Windmills, burning wood (biomass) and Geothermal. Some will accept Hydroelectric but other Greens hate dams because dams interfere with the life cycle of some fishes.

Some AGW partisans want more Nuclear Energy. Many Greens don't like Nuclear Energy. So nukes are not popular with this crowd.


It's safe to point out that most of the preferred energy sources of these people are 17th century sources. Even if you build windmills out of "space age" materials you're still using 17th century sources of energy. Windmills were abandoned during the Industrial Revolution because they were not reliable. So were water wheels and wood fires.

17th century energy sources. 17th century politics. 17th century cult mentality. No place for them in the 21st century.

The two abundant sources of energy (speaking technically of "abundant") are wind and solar. Those are the two sources most frequently suggest. Nuclear is a third, but some don't like. Biomass is not going to be sufficient. Wind, sure, is 17th century.

tzg wrote:The two abundant sources of energy (speaking technically of "abundant") are wind and solar.

Perhaps, but if you're being technical you need to define abundant more clearly. Without subsidy and with current technology-- very little energy from wind or solar can be converted to energy at competitive prices. This, of coarse, can change.

By abundant, I mean capable of providing terawatts perhaps indefinitely. Nothing about price or current technology.

Gene wrote:Do we use 17th century energy sources - and ask billions to starve - or do we create newer sources and avoid future wars over scarce Fossil fuel sources?


Lots of Elites like 17th Century sources of energy. They can continue their dominance. They even imagine that Marx was right, that Infrastructure determines how a Society operates, and want the World to return to 17th Century politics, with themselves....

Friends Of The Earth reversed their anti-nuclear stance. They recognize the peril of climate change and see the need for power to sustain industry and standards of living. Long term, they'd prefer something else but they're realistic.

I'm sure this will simply help them and the other elites become royalty and it's all a cynical power grab really. Ahem.

tzg wrote:By abundant, I mean capable of providing terawatts perhaps indefinitely. Nothing about price or current technology.

Why not dilithium?

Turdacious wrote: Without subsidy and with current technology-- very little energy from wind or solar can be converted to energy at competitive prices.

same is true for nuclear. coal and oil prices don't reflect full cost (externalities). the market is distorted.

also utility "postage stamp" pricing (as opposed to real-time pricing) works against solar, especially in congested markets. peak electricity prices are often well above the price of solar, which generates during peak hours.

Gorbachev wrote:

Gene wrote:Do we use 17th century energy sources - and ask billions to starve - or do we create newer sources and avoid future wars over scarce Fossil fuel sources?


Lots of Elites like 17th Century sources of energy. They can continue their dominance. They even imagine that Marx was right, that Infrastructure determines how a Society operates, and want the World to return to 17th Century politics, with themselves....

Friends Of The Earth reversed their anti-nuclear stance. They recognize the peril of climate change and see the need for power to sustain industry and standards of living. Long term, they'd prefer something else but they're realistic.

I'm sure this will simply help them and the other elites become royalty and it's all a cynical power grab really. Ahem.

France, the world's most nuclear-dependent country, operates 58 reactors and has been a leading international proponent of atomic energy.

But in a deal with the Greens before this year's parliamentary and presidential elections, Hollande's Socialist party promised to cut reliance on nuclear energy from more than 75 percent to 50 percent by shutting 24 reactors by 2025.

http://www.france24.com/en/20120914-fra ... rgy-policy

You were saying, Gorby? Something about "stances"? Something about Public Relations chatter?

Guess that France's Greens didn't get the message from Green Central, huh?

dead man walking wrote:

Turdacious wrote: Without subsidy and with current technology-- very little energy from wind or solar can be converted to energy at competitive prices.

same is true for nuclear. coal and oil prices don't reflect full cost (externalities). the market is distorted.

also utility "postage stamp" pricing (as opposed to real-time pricing) works against solar, especially in congested markets. peak electricity prices are often well above the price of solar, which generates during peak hours.

Do the externalities of wind and solar include loss of arable land to install the fucking things, damage to the environment from manufacturing solar cells and windmills, opportunity costs from raking off money from productive activity to subsidize Politically Correct Energy, opportunity costs when the wind don't blow and the sun sets and people need energy? That last one is pretty big - people might have something to do when the power goes out.

These costs are ignored because of "necessity".

It gets REALLY interesting when the same people who want Solar and Wind also want "set asides" for "Biodiversity". You start to wonder how people can maintain an industrial society, between the 17th century energy sources and being squeezed into urban areas with limited surface area for windmills and solar arrays.

At least SOME Greens are starting to get the point. We'll see. When they stop filing lawsuits in the US to halt reactor construction or they make new "agreements" in Europe to replace old reactors with newer safer models we'll know if they got it or not..

Gene wrote:

Gorbachev wrote:

Gene wrote:Do we use 17th century energy sources - and ask billions to starve - or do we create newer sources and avoid future wars over scarce Fossil fuel sources?


Lots of Elites like 17th Century sources of energy. They can continue their dominance. They even imagine that Marx was right, that Infrastructure determines how a Society operates, and want the World to return to 17th Century politics, with themselves....

Friends Of The Earth reversed their anti-nuclear stance. They recognize the peril of climate change and see the need for power to sustain industry and standards of living. Long term, they'd prefer something else but they're realistic.

I'm sure this will simply help them and the other elites become royalty and it's all a cynical power grab really. Ahem.

France, the world's most nuclear-dependent country, operates 58 reactors and has been a leading international proponent of atomic energy.

But in a deal with the Greens before this year's parliamentary and presidential elections, Hollande's Socialist party promised to cut reliance on nuclear energy from more than 75 percent to 50 percent by shutting 24 reactors by 2025.

http://www.france24.com/en/20120914-fra ... rgy-policy

You were saying, Gorby? Something about "stances"?

I'm sure you'll have some glib and witty remark. Might even be based upon facts or logic. Why be logical when you reduce the world to simplistic narratives?

Gene "The Greens" are a party. "Friends of the Earth" is a private organisation, which USED to be labelled "extreme". They are modifying their stance saying that the dangers of nuclear - post-Chernobyl, knowing the half-life of uranium etc. - are less than the dangers of global warming.

Here's a link to show a source for this amazing information:

http://www.marklynas.org/2012/06/friend ... ar-stance/

The idea that there is some massive conspiracy trying to hold humanity back in an artificial stone age is another scare tactic to get people off the notion that action is realistic.

I'm almost embarrassed to be responding to someone who thinks there's an elite behind climate change who want to become a "new Royalty". Seriously. That's just laughable. I suspect my emotions on this are similar to those brave enough to argue that tobacco might be hazardous to health, back in the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s. Against the vested interests and those who didn't want to see the evidence anyway.

Gene wrote:
Do the externalities of wind and solar include loss of arable land to install the fucking things, damage to the environment from manufacturing solar cells and windmills, opportunity costs from raking off money from productive activity to subsidize Politically Correct Energy, opportunity costs when the wind don't blow and the sun sets and people need energy? That last one is pretty big - people might have something to do when the power goes out.

loss of arable land--please don't make a fool of yourself.

as for other externalities, figure them in if you want, for coal, oil, solar. fine.

and power 24 hours a day, of course. no-one proposes a grid served entirely by intermittent sources. that's another silly argument.

responding to your prejudice disguised as thought is a waste of time. i am done.