|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Catastrophic effects of global warming?? Don't believe the hype.
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Catastrophic effects of global warming?? Don't believe the hype.
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| NCMike06 |
THis from a scientist with Decades of work on the issue...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010763
Quote: BE NOT AFRAID
Global Warming Delusions
The popular imagination has been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis.
BY DANIEL B. BOTKIN
Sunday, October 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect life--ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary.
Case in point: This year's United Nations report on climate change and other documents say that 20% to 30% of plant and animal species will be threatened with extinction in this century due to global warming--a truly terrifying thought. Yet, during the past 2.5 million years, a period that scientists now know experienced climatic changes as rapid and as warm as modern climatological models suggest will happen to us, almost none of the millions of species on Earth went extinct. The exceptions were about 20 species of large mammals (the famous megafauna of the last ice age--saber-tooth tigers, hairy mammoths and the like), which went extinct about 10,000 to 5,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age, and many dominant trees and shrubs of northwestern Europe. But elsewhere, including North America, few plant species went extinct, and few mammals.
We're also warned that tropical diseases are going to spread, and that we can expect malaria and encephalitis epidemics. But scientific papers by Prof. Sarah Randolph of Oxford University show that temperature changes do not correlate well with changes in the distribution or frequency of these diseases; warming has not broadened their distribution and is highly unlikely to do so in the future, global warming or not.
The key point here is that living things respond to many factors in addition to temperature and rainfall. In most cases, however, climate-modeling-based forecasts look primarily at temperature alone, or temperature and precipitation only. You might ask, "Isn't this enough to forecast changes in the distribution of species?" Ask a mockingbird. The New York Times recently published an answer to a query about why mockingbirds were becoming common in Manhattan. The expert answer was: food--an exotic plant species that mockingbirds like to eat had spread to New York City. It was this, not temperature or rainfall, the expert said, that caused the change in mockingbird geography.
You might think I must be one of those know-nothing naysayers who believes global warming is a liberal plot. On the contrary, I am a biologist and ecologist who has worked on global warming, and been concerned about its effects, since 1968. I've developed the computer model of forest growth that has been used widely to forecast possible effects of global warming on life--I've used the model for that purpose myself, and to forecast likely effects on specific endangered species.
I'm not a naysayer. I'm a scientist who believes in the scientific method and in what facts tell us. I have worked for 40 years to try to improve our environment and improve human life as well. I believe we can do this only from a basis in reality, and that is not what I see happening now. Instead, like fashions that took hold in the past and are eloquently analyzed in the classic 19th century book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," the popular imagination today appears to have been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis.
Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve. "Wolves deceive their prey, don't they?" one said to me recently. Therefore, biologically, he said, we are justified in exaggerating to get society to change.
The climate modelers who developed the computer programs that are being used to forecast climate change used to readily admit that the models were crude and not very realistic, but were the best that could be done with available computers and programming methods. They said our options were to either believe those crude models or believe the opinions of experienced, data-focused scientists. Having done a great deal of computer modeling myself, I appreciated their acknowledgment of the limits of their methods. But I hear no such statements today. Oddly, the forecasts of computer models have become our new reality, while facts such as the few extinctions of the past 2.5 million years are pushed aside, as if they were not our reality.
A recent article in the well-respected journal American Scientist explained why the glacier on Mt. Kilimanjaro could not be melting from global warming. Simply from an intellectual point of view it was fascinating--especially the author's Sherlock Holmes approach to figuring out what was causing the glacier to melt. That it couldn't be global warming directly (i.e., the result of air around the glacier warming) was made clear by the fact that the air temperature at the altitude of the glacier is below freezing. This means that only direct radiant heat from sunlight could be warming and melting the glacier. The author also studied the shape of the glacier and deduced that its melting pattern was consistent with radiant heat but not air temperature. Although acknowledged by many scientists, the paper is scorned by the true believers in global warming.
We are told that the melting of the arctic ice will be a disaster. But during the famous medieval warming period--A.D. 750 to 1230 or so--the Vikings found the warmer northern climate to their advantage. Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie addressed this in his book "Times of Feast, Times of Famine: A History of Climate Since the Year 1000," perhaps the greatest book about climate change before the onset of modern concerns with global warming. He wrote that Erik the Red "took advantage of a sea relatively free of ice to sail due west from Iceland to reach Greenland. . . . Two and a half centuries later, at the height of the climatic and demographic fortunes of the northern settlers, a bishopric of Greenland was founded at Gardar in 1126."
Ladurie pointed out that "it is reasonable to think of the Vikings as unconsciously taking advantage of this [referring to the warming of the Middle Ages] to colonize the most northern and inclement of their conquests, Iceland and Greenland." Good thing that Erik the Red didn't have Al Gore or his climatologists as his advisers.
Should we therefore dismiss global warming? Of course not. But we should make a realistic assessment, as rationally as possible, about its cultural, economic and environmental effects. As Erik the Red might have told you, not everything due to a climatic warming is bad, nor is everything that is bad due to a climatic warming.
We should approach the problem the way we decide whether to buy insurance and take precautions against other catastrophes--wildfires, hurricanes, earthquakes. And as I have written elsewhere, many of the actions we would take to reduce greenhouse-gas production and mitigate global-warming effects are beneficial anyway, most particularly a movement away from fossil fuels to alternative solar and wind energy.
My concern is that we may be moving away from an irrational lack of concern about climate change to an equally irrational panic about it.
Many of my colleagues ask, "What's the problem? Hasn't it been a good thing to raise public concern?" The problem is that in this panic we are going to spend our money unwisely, we will take actions that are counterproductive, and we will fail to do many of those things that will benefit the environment and ourselves.
For example, right now the clearest threat to many species is habitat destruction. Take the orangutans, for instance, one of those charismatic species that people are often fascinated by and concerned about. They are endangered because of deforestation. In our fear of global warming, it would be sad if we fail to find funds to purchase those forests before they are destroyed, and thus let this species go extinct.
At the heart of the matter is how much faith we decide to put in science--even how much faith scientists put in science. Our times have benefited from clear-thinking, science-based rationality. I hope this prevails as we try to deal with our changing climate.
Mr. Botkin, president of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, is the author of "Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century" (Replica Books, 2001). |
2 things:
- I doubt that anyone who responds negatively will have actually read what this scientist has to say..
- I wonder how soon the attacks on the author will come. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Al Gore has a slideshow that won a shitload of awards, therefore the truth about global warming rests with Gore.
;) |
|
|
| salafibrigades |
| global warming is about consolidation of power and the levying of more taxes. it's a racket. |
|
|
| booybob |
| where is his connection to big oil?? You know the assault on his creditability will follow |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
What people seem to ignore is the fact that Gore's assertions from "An Inconvenient Truth" are still just theory. Gore has claimed over and over that the "science is in" and that "the jury is out on this" but if you read the language from Nobel it is litted with "which may," "possibly" and the like.
As I see it - is the globe warming? Yes. How much of this is caused by human behavior? We don't know. Is this part of the Earth's natural fluctuations? Probably. Will Florida be under water in 20 years? No. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
ugust 20, 2002
MANAGING PLANET EARTH: A CONVERSATION WITH/Daniel Botkin; Adjusting Attitudes on Energy To Keep Our Favorite Things
By CLAUDIA DREIFUS
Dr. Daniel B. Botkin, 64, a professor of biology at the University of California at Santa Barbara and the president of the Center for the Study of the Environment there, is one of the world's leading environmental researchers and has done much to popularize the concept of using yet maintaining the world's natural resources.
''Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the 21st Century,'' his 1990 book, published by the Oxford University Press, is considered by many ecologists to be the classic text of the movement.
Q. It's been a decade since the United Nations' Earth Summit meeting in Rio de Janeiro, where the term sustainability was heard early and often. In the 10 years since Rio, have you seen much movement toward that ''sustainable world'' that was heralded so hopefully there?
A. The good news is there is a lot more talk about sustainability than ever. The bad news is about people doing things sustainably: nothing much has improved. What's also discouraging is that a lot of concern has wandered away from a solid scientific basis for sustainability and toward empty verbiage. The term has become so overused that it means vastly different things to different people.
Q. Give us Daniel Botkin's definition of sustainability.
A. First, we have to look at sustainability of a product -- for instance, timber. That's different from sustainability of an ecosystem. A natural resource like a forest is sustainable if it can regrow at the same rate that you harvest it, for a defined time period. An ecosystem is sustainable if when you affect it -- perhaps through harvesting or humans' hiking through it -- it can still sustain itself through a defined time period.
Q. Despite the increased discussion of sustainability, material consumption in the United States has escalated. The trend in new houses and cars is the bigger the better. Is it your view that Americans are in a kind of denial about nature's finiteness?
A. It's deeper than that. Few human societies have ever restrained their use of resources if they had the technology to overexploit them. But a lot of pro-sustainability efforts are still possible in America without reducing the standard of living. Let's talk specifics here. If Americans want trophy houses and big cars, you have to talk to them about energy policy. There are sustainable solutions to the energy problem. There's plenty of solar and wind energy right now. The technology exists. It's ready. You can buy it off the shelf.
Q. So why do we see so little use of sustainable energy like the sun and wind?
A. Well, I can tell you in California, where there's push to do this, the power companies lobby and get little riders on bills that make it unprofitable for people to use solar energy or to go into businesses that would make solar energy devices. There's a lot of industrial and political inertia based on a fossil fuel economy.
You have to break through that fossil fuel mind-set. When I talk to my friends in economics, they tell me that the conventional wisdom has it that solar and wind power are way off in the future and that nuclear is something we can use now. The facts are the opposite. So we have a cultural mind-set that drags us down.
Q. Do you see Americans as too affluent to incorporate principles of sustainability into their everyday lives?
A. I don't think that affluence necessarily leads to nonsustainable practices. Nor is the converse necessarily true. There are poor aquaculture farmers in Malaysia, who destroy mangrove swamps to make shrimp ponds that will last only two or three years. It's human nature to think of the immediate need first. On the other hand, in a developed country like Norway, people there are very sustainability-conscious.
In terms of the United States, there's never been a movement for sustainability. You can't name a major political or cultural leader who has emerged as a spokesman for it. Sustainability is a much more fashionable word in international circles, in Europe, at worldwide centers like the United Nations Environment Program.
Q. How do you rate the record of the Clinton-Gore administration on issues of sustainability?
A. A big disappointment. There were so many ways they could have worked toward sustainability. They didn't.
Q. And would you give us your view of the performance of the Bush administration on sustainability?
A. I wish they understood global warming. I wish they had an understanding of the energy situation. They don't understand that the technology for renewables is here now, that nuclear is no solution, that we must stop depending on foreign oil and that we can solve energy problems by going to solar and wind power.
Also, I think they are totally underestimating the importance of global warming as a risk. It has to be looked at in the same way you look at earthquakes and hurricanes. The question should not be, ''Is global warming happening?'' but rather, ''What is the risk of global warming happening, and what are the consequences if it does?'' You shoul The insurance premium would include reduction of greenhouse gases.
Q. During the last 10 years, globalization brought wealth to corners of the world previously considered underdeveloped. Will these newly affluent countries be as profligate with resources as the United States and the rest of the industrialized world has been?
A. People have always been profligate with resources. But the facts here are clear. There aren't enough resources to go around for everybody to live at the level we in America live at. Somebody's going to have to give up something. But that's where we get into sustainable development in a meaningful way. One of the big questions of our time is, How can you have a good quality of human life, physically and spiritually that uses fewer resources per person?
Q. You speak of people needing a new mind-set. What exactly do you mean by that?
A. My belief is that we will not attain sustainability until we learn to love both nature and people. To love nature, you have to find a way to make a deep connection with it. If more Americans felt more connected to nature, they would feel a bigger stake in policies that cut resource consumption. They wouldn't be as defensive about scaling back on big cars or other wasteful consumer items; they'd want to do it.
Q. As the delegates to the World Summit on Sustainable Development begin their deliberations, what advice would you offer?
A. In the past, sustainability advocates have mostly talked about sustaining one product or resource. In these new times, I would hope that they turn their attention toward creating sustainable livelihoods in a context with ecosystems that are also sustained. We have to think about people and nature as one.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...agewanted=print
Your source says no to nuclear, in favor of cutting ties to foreign oil, and for pushing wind and solar energy because he says you have to realize what the risk of global warming MIGHT be and "act like you're buying an insurance policy against something you hope won't happen."
Are you saying you agree with all of those assertions? |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
As I see it - is the globe warming? Yes. How much of this is caused by human behavior? We don't know. Is this part of the Earth's natural fluctuations? Probably. Will Florida be under water in 20 years? No. |
if you actually think that the increasing number of people, vehicles, houses being built, roads being paved, corporations that are lax on pollution over the last 100 years (for example) has less or equal bearing on the planet's natural fluctuations you are in denial. You meaning all the republicans who flat out deny global warming. |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
| Right wing retards |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
MAN’S ROLE IN A GLOBALLY WARMED WORLD
Daniel B. Botkin
Copyright © Daniel B. Botkin 2007
Fifty years ago, a group of scholars and scientists — some of America’s greatest humanitarians — published a landmark book titled Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth. It was one of the twentieth century’s major statements about how people and their civilizations had changed the environment. Not only did it paint the picture of what people had done that had harmed the environment, it suggested what people might do to improve the environment and at the same time improve the lot of humanity.
Nowadays we hear daily from the media and through the media about the threat of global warming and its potentially dire effects on people and the diversity of life on Earth. The general tenor of these pronouncements is negative for people. You get the sense that people, especially modern technological people, have done wrong by Mother Nature. Having thus sinned against nature, we are warned that we will suffer the consequences. There will be massive flooding and terrible storms, destroying our homes and ways of life; millions if not billions of people displaced, homeless, wandering. Fresh water will be hard to find; we will thirst and our crops will fail. Pestilences and plagues confined to tropical climates will spread, and many of us will die.
A dark picture of the future emerges that sounds like the Medieval explanation of the great plagues as mankind’s punishment for its sins. The obvious implication is that we environmental sinners must pay by becoming material and energy minimalists and misers.
But if a warmer world is inevitable, is it not worth asking what is the role of human beings in that world and how could we make that world livable? Can we more than mitigate the worst effects, perhaps create a globally warmed world where there is music, art, literature, swimming, boating, hiking, picnics, trips to wilderness, views of magnificent forests, wildlife, and ocean shores.
Some biological conservationists are using formal computer models to forecast where habitats for endangered species might be in the future. Sometimes this is cast only negatively, to assure us that our present parks and preserves are doomed. But sometimes there is a glimmer of hope, that perhaps our modern scientific tools and our technology could help us help other creatures and build a world of the future that has biodiversity, life’s wonderful variety, and might even be enjoyed by us.
Perhaps it is time to expand this constructive approach, to look back at the ways of thinking of scholars and scientists of the mid-twentieth century, who saw not only our dark side but also our bright side, and sought to move us and our civilizations to be better.
There are precedents for such positive approaches to dire environmental change. In the 1930s, in response in part to the Dust Bowl and in part to the Great Depression, the federal government, apparently from a conviction that writers, artists, and musicians, that human culture and creativity, were worthwhile and deserved support, set up the Works Project Administration including the Federal Writers Project, and provided things for creative people to do that would benefit them, as well as benefit creativity and society. Today, in a time when large federal agencies and projects are seen often as having serious drawbacks, there could be other paths to this goal: individual creativity, local initiatives, regional responses, actions from the private sector.
Those who don’t believe in global warming will probably say that this kind of activity would be a waste of money. Those who do think global warming is happening may think that this is the worst admission of our failure to avoid it. Those who believe that a democratic society only acts in panic faced with doom and gloom will oppose this as another way to assure that the worst will happen to the environment. But those who love the best of civilization and the best of human cultures and creativity should applaud this suggestion and begin thinking of the best ways to make the globally warmed future liveable and more. Those scientists and scholars who are convinced that global warming is our most likely future have a moral obligation to take constructive actions of the kind I am suggesting. Who will stand up to the challenge?
I will be putting up a list of things you can do, both to help reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and to improve our lives in a global warming world.
http://www.danielbbotkin.com/archiv...ly-warmed-world |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
GLOBAL WARMING AND BUYING INSURANCE
Daniel B. Botkin
Copyright © Daniel B. Botkin 2007
As someone who has done research since 1968 on global warming and its possible effects on living things, I am impressed and surprised by the great amount of attention that the media, Congress, international bodies, and people in general are paying to this issue, which seemed to be ignored for so long.
Over the years, people have often asked me whether global warming is happening or not, and whether the terrible possible effects are definitely going to happen or not. I reply that this isn’t the right question, that we should think about global warming and its possible effects more like the way we think about buying insurance against other natural hazards and catastrophes.
I was on the faculty at the University of California, Santa Barbara for many years, and when I moved there I became acquainted with earthquakes and wildfires. I bought a house there and asked one of my colleagues in the geology department who was an expert on earthquakes and asked if I should buy earthquake insurance. “I don’t have it,” he said, “and here’s why. It’s expensive. The deductible is $10,000. If an earthquake strikes this part of California and does an average of $10,000 damage per house, this will bankrupt the insurance companies and the Feds will have to come in and bail them out and cover our costs anyway. And it’s very unlikely that that bad an earthquake will happen in my lifetime anyway. So I don’t have it.” He was right — the damage of the next big earthquake did exceed the ability of the insurance companies to pay, and the Feds did have to come in and bail people out.
What he was evaluating was, first, the cost of the premium; second, the likelihood of the event; third, the effects (in dollar terms) of that event; and fourth, whether the insurance would likely pay off anyway.
People did the same kind of analysis for wildfires and came to the opposite conclusion. Everybody had that kind of insurance. The premium was relatively cheap, wildfires were common and likely in one’s lifetime, the deductible was low; and the potential personal costs without insurance were disastrous.
What’s the equivalent of buying global-warming insurance? Actions to lessen the rate of warming or offset potential effects of global warming. The intriguing thing is that most of the actions we would take to “insure” ourselves would benefit us even setting aside the issue of global warming. We would plant trees to take up carbon dioxide; and we would burn less coal, which, aside from its greenhouse gas contributions, is highly polluting both to mine and to burn (and especially hazardous for the miners). We would generate electricity from solar and wind energy, abundant in many places that do not have petroleum reserves; this would reduce international strife over access to oil and gas. We would increase plantings even in our cities, making urban life more pleasant. We would lower our energy costs (when you take into account all the costs of fossil fuel energy including the oil depletion allowance and wars fought over petroleum resources. We would help save endangered and threatened species. Viewed this way, it would make sense to do the equivalent of buying global-warming insurance.
Forget about empty debates as to whether or not global warming is going to bring catastrophe and whether it is our fault. Take action that is carefully chosen to both combat global warming and benefit living things with or without global warming. And be particularly careful not to act in such panic as to do things that are dangerous and damaging to life on Earth. In short, think about it the way my geologist colleague thought about buying earthquake and wildfire insurance in California.
http://www.danielbbotkin.com/archiv...uying-insurance |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT A SOLUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING
Daniel B. Botkin
Copyright © 2007 Daniel B. Botkin
It has come as a shock to me that some of my fellow environmentalists, and one of this country’s leading newspapers, have recently begun arguing in favor of nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels and a way to fight global warming. Stewart Brand, according to a recent interview in the New York Times—which calls him one of the originators of environmentalism—is for it and feels “guilty that he and his fellow environmentalists created so much fear of nuclear power.” The famous British scientist and environmentalist James Lovelock has also said that nuclear power is our best choice to combat global warming, and not long ago the New York Times ran an editorial endorsing this kind of power. These opinions are apparently having an effect. The New York Times reported on March 28 that rising concerns about global warming are helping to drive up the price of uranium and leading to a new boom in uranium mining.
If leading environmentalists are for it and the power industry is for it—usually two opposing sides in the environmental debate—then this must be the way to go. Right? But consider these facts:
We would need too many nuclear plants. In the United States, 104 operating nuclear power reactors at 65 sites provide 8% of our energy, while fossil fuels provide 85%. For nuclear power to completely replace fossil fuels, we would need more than 1,000 new nuclear power plants of the same designs and efficiencies as existing plants. This would mean an average of 20 new plants per state.
Today, fossil fuels provide 71.4% of the electricity produced in the United States, while nuclear power plants provide 19.4%. Just to replace the electrical generation by fossil fuels with nuclear energy would require 285 new nuclear power plants of the kind, size, and efficiency of those in use now, and to counteract global warming these would have to be built and put online within a few years. This is just not practical.
Nuclear power is not a short-term solution. The uranium isotope that fuels conventional nuclear plants is a rare mineral—less than 1% of uranium ores. It is so rare that known reserves of it will run out before the end of this century if we greatly increase its use, as is proposed for the United States and the rest of the world. It is unlikely that the amount of uranium required for 1,000 new plants could be obtained at all—and certainly not quickly. Moreover, nuclear power plants are complex and take a long time to build. Even reaching agreement on where to build them is contentious and time-consuming. The fact is, no one wants to live near a nuclear power plant.
In short, if we need to diminish our use of fossil fuels right now—this year, next year, within the coming decade—nuclear power isn’t going to help. It would take a decade or more from planning to going on line for any of these plants to become operational, and it would take a huge effort to site and develop plans for the required number of nuclear power plants.
Add to this that uranium is dangerous. Mining it, transporting it, using it, and disposing of its radioactive waste all pose problems to which we have no satisfactory solutions. Right now there are 70,000 tons of radioactive waste in the United States in temporary holding facilities. This waste (and more to come) will need to be sealed off securely for 10,000 years. The federal government’s plan is to put it underground at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Estimates are that just transporting this waste from the 39 sites in many states where it is now to Yucca Mountain would take one to six trainloads (or truck convoys) a day for 24 years. The Department of Energy plans to have each shipment heavily guarded by police and the military to protect against terrorism. The shipments would go near or through many major cities, including Atlanta, Chicago, Omaha, Pittsburgh, and Salt Lake City, as well as right through metropolitan Las Vegas.
The federal government doesn’t have a good plan in place for dealing with all this waste in the meantime. Think the Department of Energy is taking care of all this for us? Think again. A 2005 GAO report said that existing holding facilities would be filled in 2008. That isn’t exactly the kind of long-term planning that nuclear power requires.
Finally, conventional nuclear power plants have limited lifetimes, perhaps 30 or 40 years, perhaps more, but after that they have to be dismantled. Current federal government plans are to remove the less radioactive parts and then seal off the really hot reactor and other materials for 70 to 100 years until they become safe enough for people to dismantle them. That’s a lot of unusable, dangerous reactors sitting around the country, also targets for terrorism.
It costs even more to dismantle a nuclear reactor than to build it. These costs, along with the costs of transporting and policing the wastes, need to be included in calculating the cost of electricity from nuclear power plants. Has anybody made those calculations?
I’ve done research on global warming since the late 1960s and am concerned about the potential effects, so I do hope to see reductions in our release of greenhouse gases. But this clearly isn’t the way.
The question is not whether nuclear power is a viable replacement for fossil fuels. The question is, Why would anybody think it is?
http://www.danielbbotkin.com/archiv...r-energy-crisis |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
The Solution to our Energy Problem
ENERGY FOREVER: A SOLUTION TO OUR ENERGY PROBLEM
Daniel B. Botkin
Copyright © Daniel B. Botkin 2007
The answer to our energy crisis lies in a farm field in Bavaria, Germany. There, sheep graze beneath an unusual crop: an array of black rectangles mounted on long metal tubes that rotate slowly during the day, following the sun like mechanical sunflowers. This is the world’s largest solar-electric installation, generating 10 megawatts on 62 acres. Scaled up, just 3.5% of Germany’s land area could provide solar energy equal to all energy used in Germany — cars, trucks, trains, manufacturing, everything!
This would not have to be on otherwise empty land; it could be on rooftops, above parking lots, and integrated with certain kinds of pasture and cropland.
Solar energy collection seems unlikely in Germany’s climate, and even less likely in Bavaria — a landscape famous not for sunshine but for high mountain peaks and beautiful winter sport resorts. In Munich, Bavaria’s major city, about one-third of the days are rainy all year long, the average January daytime temperature is 34o F, and the average August daytime temperatures a mild 73o.
So why aren’t nations rushing to install solar power facilities? Are costs prohibitive? In 2002 Con Edison built New York City largest commercial rooftop solar energy system for $900,000, providing energy for 100 houses. At an average of four people per home, the installed cost is $2250 per person. For the 300 million United States residents, the installation cost would be $675 billion.
The U. S. balance of trade is in the red about $60 billion a month, or $720 billion a year, and much of this trade imbalance is due to the cost of foreign oil. So, for the equivalent of one year’s trade imbalance, the United States could pay the cost of installing solar energy facilities for all domestic electrical consumption.
The war in Iraq — justified, many say, in part to protect our sources of oil — has cost an official federal allocation of more than $506 billion. In January, a report by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz estimated that the total true costs of the Iraq war could be between $1 and $2 trillion. For the cost of the Iraq war — or perhaps just one-half or one-quarter of those costs — solar energy systems could have been installed to provide domestic electricity for all the people in America, energy forever!
The numbers become even more amazing for the dry, sunny climate of Arizona. Based on facilities already installed there, covering just 1% of Arizona’s land with these solar collectors would produce electric for 275 million houses — considerably more houses than exist in the United States.
Solar energy, of course, has many other benefits; primarily independence from foreign suppliers and greatly reduced air and water pollution, including less greenhouse gas. It also offers the option of decentralized energy production, which would reduce the risk to our energy supply from terrorist attacks.
Why isn’t the United States pursuing solar energy production? The conventional wisdom of environmental economists I know is that solar will never be more than a minor player in the energy game. World-famous environmentalist James Lovelock says the same thing. Is it just a mind-set that is holding us back?
Perhaps their information is out of date. The efficiency of solar energy devices has improved rapidly: Today’s solar devices convert 17 % of solar energy to electricity; not too long ago, these devices converted only 1 % to 2 %.
Perhaps big power companies stand to lose too much revenue (and control over power distribution) if decentralized generation takes over when solar power production is done on rooftops.
Perhaps, despite the clear need to move away from oil, there is just too much money riding on oil production and distribution for us to let go easily.
Whatever the reasons have been, the facts tell us that we should wait no longer.
http://www.danielbbotkin.com/archiv...-energy-problem |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
What is it like to be in a radiation-polluted land?
A Walk Through an Irradiated Forest
With growing recent advocacy for more nuclear power plants, I have been thinking about a little-known, unique and curious experiment conducted in the 1960s and 1970s at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Long Island, NY: the laboratory radiated an entire forest. Back in those cold-war days the danger of a nuclear war and of other releases of radioactive materials seemed real. One response of the Federal government was to sponsor three experiments examining the effects on natural ecosystems of releases of radioactive isotopes, the kind of things that make electricity in nuclear power plants or are by-products of that production.
I was one of the researchers in that radioactive forest. We could work in the forest four hours a day because the radiation was the relatively “clean” kind – from the heavy metal Cesium’s radioactive isotope 137. This produced only gamma rays – rays like x-rays only with much shorter wavelengths and much deadlier. The Laboratory moved the largest source of Cesium-137 that could be handled by earth moving machinery safely into the forest, mounted it on a vertical, movable pole with gadgets that allowed the radioactive material to be lowered into the ground and protected under lead shielding four hours a day.
It was weird and strangely fascinating to walk into that radiated forest after a decade of its exposure. Near ground zero, as the photograph I took shows, all the plants were dead, but they did not decay – the radiation cleaned the area even of fungus and bacteria, earthworms, bark beetles, and other creatures that participate in the decay of dead wood. It was a forest of standing dead trees, somewhat blackened, looking as if it had just burned the day before, but many of the trees had been killed years before.
We hunted around for the hardiest life that could survive the radiation. Within about six feet of the source we found, on the back of a warning sign, a small green patch that turned out to be a kind of algae, called Protococcus, that grows on the surface of damp soils. The hardiest flowering plants were some sedges that could grow in the shadow cast by the standing dead trees.
The plan for nuclear wastes is to avoid such landscapes by burying the used but still radioactive materials. As Vice-President Cheney has acknowledged, exactly how to handle the wastes hasn’t been completely worked out. The leading proposals are to bury them deep in Nevada or some other place out of sight of the nation’s capitol. But the radioactive wastes remain dangerous for 10,000 years. A government task force assigned the job of designing a warning that could be understood by people for one hundred centuries proposed, as one solution, solid structures above the waste depository that were designed to emit mournful sounds when the wind blew. With modern acoustic engineering, perhaps we could design a structure that would play a sad, mournful melody for 10,000 years.
Many physicists and engineers say that this buried waste would be perfectly safe, but just in case it leaked, the warning would be necessary. And imagine the legacy of our civilization if it did leak. Not only would we produce a melody, but if people came to investigate it, they would wither and die. Wow! We could outdo the curses of the Egyptian priests who tried, with little success, to prevent robbing of the great pyramids. And if we do fail to deal with the nuclear waste problem, we might find that we have created landscapes like the Brookhaven National Laboratory experiment, or perhaps worse, contaminated with all forms of radiation including those that linger and get into ecological food chains.
Members of that task force point out that the longest surviving purposeful artifacts of past human civilization have been either graffiti or large structures – like Stonehenge – whose purposes we do not understand. Our contribution to the future of the world would be a message that people would really understand – music and death.
Consider the alternatives. Suppose we put the money proposed for nuclear power plants into solar energy. Solar energy collectors can be placed on roofs of buildings and be pretty much invisible. And because they produced electricity where it was needed, the huge new transmission lines that Cheney has told us are necessary would not be built.
Another alternative is wind energy, but windmills are more controversial. Although they are economically competitive with fossil fuel energy production, some people think they are pretty and some don’t. Wind mills can run in farm and range land. And if a farmer abandoned farming, the land might revert to prairie, with windmills in it.
The irradiated forest at Brookhaven National Laboratory and the problem of creating a warning sign that will communicate danger for 10,000 years bring out the real issues underlying the energy debate: the quality of our lives. If we step back and ask: why do we want electrical energy, automobiles, and airplanes? The answer – aside from money and power to those who run power companies – is to improve the quality of our lives. Why throw out or endanger some aspects of the quality of our lives – human and environmental health and well being – pleasing landscapes, reduced sense of risk – in our attempt to save another part – such as modern technologies of transportation and the advantages of modern computing-based technologies that are based on the use of electricity. Both are deeply meaningful to human beings and to the continuation of civilization.
Many experts argue the numbers, about how much power can be produced, about the economics and cost-efficiency. Before we approach those issues, however, we have to come to terms with the fundamental human values that are the basis of the debate: the underlying and powerful issue of the quality of life and the beauty and health of our landscapes, of nature.
Copyright © Daniel B. Botkin 2003
http://www.danielbbotkin.com/archiv...quality-of-life |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Mike, do you agree with your source on all of these issues?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: |
|
|
| Monster_Zero |
I wholeheartedly believe that our dependence on fossil fuels is the #1 problem facing America.
If it wasn't for the money made on oil, America wouldn't be engulfed in the clusterfuck it is now. And it's not even our dependence, it's the greed generated by the world's Oil dependence! :mad:
The best way to destroy the power held in the middle east, is by producing a low cost energy solution... America could do it, but were too busy protecting the gooey shit, piped from the middle east... :ec: :rolleyes:
I realize it easier to sell shit you don't haffta produce... but if we decided to produce energy, instead of depleting it.... how could this plan fail? |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Mike, do you agree with your source on all of these issues?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: |
I don't agree with any 'source' or person on every issue. Its scary though, that you might. |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
I don't agree with any 'source' or person on every issue. Its scary though, that you might. |
you only agree with what you are told to agree with. Sheep. |
|
|
| mr wrong |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
I don't agree with any 'source' or person on every issue. Its scary though, that you might. |
But it's still your source...
Funny how it illustrates how little research you do before making these posts. Now your back peddling begins:
"uh, well, uh I don't agree with everything he says"
Better yet, to quote you:
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Convenient dodge of your hypocrisy, I would say. But why would you want to actually address an issue that you know so little about. |
|
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
I don't agree with any 'source' or person on every issue. Its scary though, that you might. |
I don't, but you are the one who made a point about this man's great credentials. Now maybe you can tell us how he is wrong about :
global warming being at least partially caused by man
getting off of foreign oil
promoting wind and solar power
cutting greenhouse gas emissions
conserving resources
NOT going nuclear
can't wait. Better be good - as you said, he is a scientist with decades of work on the issue....
:jj: :jj: :jj: :jj: :jj: :jj: |
|
|
| V00 D00 |
| it was like 83 here today.... I'll be dead by the time the glacier melts.. It was nice to wear shorts and sandals. Enjoy the warm weather....... |
|
|
| FulSoldierEfect |
Quote: Originally posted by V00 D00
it was like 83 here today.... I'll be dead by the time the glacier melts.. It was nice to wear shorts and sandals. Enjoy the warm weather....... |
:lol::lol::lol::lol: |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
I don't, but you are the one who made a point about this man's great credentials. Now maybe you can tell us how he is wrong about : |
Sure, and I will expect YOU to rebutt what he says in the ORIGINAL article, and how YOU are against what he says in that piece.
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
global warming being at least partially caused by man |
- Lomborg believes this also, (believes) their belief does not make it so. It is a belief because it is not proven. When it is proven, everyone can stop 'believing' . WHo is more responsible, cows or man???
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
getting off of foreign oil |
- wonderful. I am all for it. You however are not willing to do what is necessary to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. You seem content to have out energy needs outsourced, while we play games with unproven methods, without any supporting infrastructure.
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
promoting wind and solar power |
- All for it. Wonderful idea. Maybe you should talk to your boy Ted Kennedy about this.... In fact I would be more than willing to support a windmill in my backyard. :)
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
cutting greenhouse gas emissions |
See response to #1.
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
conserving resources |
- No problem here. Resources should always be maximized and conserved. You seem only willing to go half way. And you have the balls to point fingers..... LOL
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
NOT going nuclear |
I never said he was infallible. He is not. Just like everyone else, he is correct on some things, not correct on others. Which in no way detracts from his sensibility on the overall issue.
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
can't wait. Better be good - as you said, he is a scientist with decades of work on the issue....
:jj: :jj: :jj: :jj: :jj: :jj: |
Now, I'll repeat what I said at first... hoping for an honest response for a change. (and YOUR words, not words of someone else) Sure, and I will expect YOU to rebutt what he says in the ORIGINAL article, and how YOU are against what he says in that piece.
Can't wait...better be good. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Sure, and I will expect YOU to rebutt what he says in the ORIGINAL article, and how YOU are against what he says in that piece.
- Lomborg believes this also, (believes) their belief does not make it so. It is a belief because it is not proven. When it is proven, everyone can stop 'believing' . WHo is more responsible, cows or man???
- wonderful. I am all for it. You however are not willing to do what is necessary to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. You seem content to have out energy needs outsourced, while we play games with unproven methods, without any supporting infrastructure.
- All for it. Wonderful idea. Maybe you should talk to your boy Ted Kennedy about this.... In fact I would be more than willing to support a windmill in my backyard. :)
See response to #1.
- No problem here. Resources should always be maximized and conserved. You seem only willing to go half way. And you have the balls to point fingers..... LOL
I never said he was infallible. He is not. Just like everyone else, he is correct on some things, not correct on others. Which in no way detracts from his sensibility on the overall issue.
Now, I'll repeat what I said at first... hoping for an honest response for a change. (and YOUR words, not words of someone else) Sure, and I will expect YOU to rebutt what he says in the ORIGINAL article, and how YOU are against what he says in that piece.
Can't wait...better be good. |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMoron06
Lomborg believes this also, (believes) their belief does not make it so. It is a belief because it is not proven. When it is proven, everyone can stop 'believing' . WHo is more responsible, cows or man??? |
Lomborg is an idiot who claims to believe in manmade global warming, but then distorts the science to suit his purposes. This is well documented. How many times do you need to read that Lomborg has no understanding of the science he writes about?
An example?
Here you go:
Misinformation from Lomborg
Category: Global Warming
Posted on: February 7, 2007 12:26 PM, by Tim Lambert
Bjorn Lomborg makes the (by now traditional) claim that the new IPCC report has significantly reduced the estimates of projected sea level rises.
Six years ago, it anticipated ocean levels would be 48.5 centimeters higher than they are currently. In this year's report, the estimated rise is 38.5 centimeters on average.
But the 38.5 number Lomborg presents does not include increases from accelerating ice flows. About these, the report says:
For example, if this contribution were to grow linearly with global average temperature change, the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios shown in Table SPM-2 would increase by 0.1 m to 0.2 m. Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise.
IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth (speaking on Science Friday) spoke on the sea level projections:
"The numbers in this report are actually very similar to the previous report, however they are reported in a somewhat different way"
Lomborg continues:
This is especially interesting since it fundamentally rejects one of the most harrowing scenes from Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth. In graphic detail, Mr Gore demonstrated how a 20-foot [6 metres] rise in the sea level would inundate much of Florida, Shanghai, and the Netherlands. The IPCC report makes it clear that exaggerations of this magnitude have no basis in science - though clearly they frightened people and perhaps will win Mr Gore an Oscar.
Actually the report says:
The corresponding future temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when paleoclimatic information suggests reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise.
Now you could fault Gore for not saying how long this would take, but it doesn't look like there is a good estimate for this.
Lomborg:
The report also revealed the improbability of another Gore scenario: that global warming could make the Gulf Stream shut down, turning Europe into a new Siberia. The IPCC simply and tersely tells us that this scenario - also vividly depicted in the Hollywood movie The Day After Tomorrow - is considered "very unlikely".
Which means that they think that there is a 5-10% chance of it happening. It's not that improbable that Gore would have been justified in ignoring it.
Quote: Originally posted by NCMoron06
wonderful. I am all for it. You however are not willing to do what is necessary to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. You seem content to have out energy needs outsourced, while we play games with unproven methods, without any supporting infrastructure.
|
I am "not willing"? Bwaaaahahahahahahaha!!!! You fucking idiot, the ONLY alternative you have offered to foreign oil is drilling holes every 5 feet in the US. Despite being shown a million times that places like ANWR will not produce a drop of oil for 10 years and Bush himself admits it will not lower gas prices one bit. The idea is to move AWAY from as much fossil fuel use as possible, retard, not move your thirst to a new continent.
What "games" have I suggested playing with "unproven methods"? post them here, idiot. Is solar unproven? Wind? What "infrastructure" are you talking about?
Quote: Originally posted by NCMoron06
- All for it. Wonderful idea. Maybe you should talk to your boy Ted Kennedy about this.... In fact I would be more than willing to support a windmill in my backyard. :)
|
I have stated many times in this forum that I think it's bullshit that Kennedy fought that wind farm. Unless he could prove it would do real damage to the environment where it was to be located (he didn't), he should have used this as an example of inviting this technology to your neighborhood.
Quote: Originally posted by NCMoron06
See response to #1. |
This is not a response.
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions means regulating the corporations you love so much, asshole.
Quote: Originally posted by NCMoron06
- No problem here. Resources should always be maximized and conserved. You seem only willing to go half way. And you have the balls to point fingers..... LOL |
Lame response.
What resources are you in favor of conserving? How? And what am I "only willing to go half way" about? Post examples with quotes.
Quote: Originally posted by NCMoron06
I never said he was infallible. He is not. Just like everyone else, he is correct on some things, not correct on others. Which in no way detracts from his sensibility on the overall issue. |
Another non response.
You did not address even a single point he made about the reasons nuclear is not the future.
You're right, he IS sensible, you are not. The part you can't escape now is that your source is much closer to my side of this argument than your do nothing, ignore the problem position. Your source wants to get AWAY from dirty fossil fuels because they are running out and cause EXPENSIVE and deadly wars (does your hero Lomborg factor in the costs of wars fought for oil?), your source wants to push technologies that are already HERE. Maybe you don't understand what PUSH means? That means getting them out there as much as possible, as fast as possible.
Your source says we must look at taking action like an insurance policy against what MIGHT happen. If it doesn't happen, then we have done nothing except clean up our society and show we care about the world we live in.....
His writings could not be farther from the corporate, oil-drenched bullshit you post in this forum, you fucking idiot.
As for the original article:
18 October 2007
Global Warming Delusions at the Wall Street Journal
Filed under:
Climate Science
— david @ 6:58 PM
Daniel Botkin, emeritus professor of ecology at UC Santa Barbara, argues in the Wall Street Journal (Oct 17, page A19) that global warming will not have much impact on life on Earth. We'll summarize some of his points and then take our turn:
Botkin: The warm climates in the past 2.5 million years did not lead to extinctions.
Response: For the past 2.5 million years the climate has oscillated between interglacials which were (at most) a little warmer than today and glacials which were considerably colder than today. There is no precedent in the past 2.5 million years for so much warming so fast. The ecosystem has had 2.5 million years to adapt to glacial-interglacial swings, but we are asking it to adapt to a completely new climate in just a few centuries. The past is not a very good analog for the future in this case. And anyway, the human species can suffer quite a bit before we start talking extinction.
Botkin: Tropical diseases are affected by other things besides temperature
Response: I'm personally more worried about dust bowls than malaria in the temperate latitudes. Droughts don't lead to too many extinctions either, but they can destroy civilizations. It is true that tropical diseases are affected by many things besides temperature, but temperature is important, and the coming warming is certainly not going to make the fight against malaria any easier.
Botkin: Kilimanjaro again.
Response: Been there, done that. The article Botkin cites is from American Scientist, an unreviewed pop science magazine, and it is mainly a rehash of old arguments that have been discussed and disposed of elsewhere. And anyway, the issue is a red-herring. Even if it turned out that for some bizarre reason the Kilimanjaro glacier, which is thousands of years old, picked just this moment to melt purely by coincidence, it would not in any way affect the validity of our prediction of future warming. Glaciers are melting around the world, confirming the general warming trends that we measure. There are also many other confirmations of the physics behind the predictions. It's a case of attacking the science by attacking an icon, rather than taking on the underlying scientific arguments directly.
Botkin: The medieval optimum was a good time
Response: Maybe it was, if you're interested in Europe and don't mind the droughts in the American Southwest. But the business-as-usual forecast for 2100 is an entirely different beast than the medieval climate. The Earth is already probably warmer than it was in medieval times. Beware the bait and switch!
—
Botkin argues for clear-thinking rationality in the discussion about anthropogenic climate change, against twisting the truth, as it were. We couldn't agree more. Doctor, heal thyself.
For years the Wall Street Journal has been lying to you about the existence of global warming. It doesn't exist, it's a conspiracy, the satellites show it's just urban heat islands, it's not CO2, it's all the sun, it's water vapor, and on and on. Now that those arguments are losing traction, they have moved on from denying global warming's existence to soothing you with reassurances that it ain't gonna be such a bad thing.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…well..uh..you ain't gonna fool me again.
-George W. Bush
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...street-journal/ |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Bump.
I think everyone should read Botkin's ideas.
Cut greenhouse gas emissions
Cut ties to foreign oil
Global warming is at least partially manmade
Take action that will benefit society even if climate predictions are wrong
Promote solar
Promote wind
Conserve resources
Nuclear is not the answer.
:jj: :jj: :jj: :jj: :jj: :jj: |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Lomborg is an idiot who claims to believe in manmade global warming, but then distorts the science to suit his purposes. This is well documented. How many times do you need to read that Lomborg has no understanding of the science he writes about?
An example?
Here you go:
I am "not willing"? Bwaaaahahahahahahaha!!!! You fucking idiot, the ONLY alternative you have offered to foreign oil is drilling holes every 5 feet in the US. Despite being shown a million times that places like ANWR will not produce a drop of oil for 10 years and Bush himself admits it will not lower gas prices one bit. The idea is to move AWAY from as much fossil fuel use as possible, retard, not move your thirst to a new continent. |
Lets look at the multiple problems with this statement:
- No one is talking about 'drilling holes every 5 feet' What we are talking about is MAXIMIZING OUR resources. WHich means tapping into the known BILLIONS of barrels in AnWR and off the coasts.
- It will take 6-9 years to get oil from ANWR, and that is a reason FOR starting sooner rather than later you dumbass !!!!!!! Your scenario says that we get to the point where we really need that oil, but can't get it for 6-9 years because we have NOT started the process yet !!! What a WONDERFUL energy policy that is !!
- THis is NOT about gas prices !!!! Why do you need to interject gas prices into the argument when we are talking about our supply of oil ????
- YOUR idea is to ignore the known and usable resources we have, in search of some fantasy of flying cars fueled by some magic wand somewhere. (especially when the consequences of those other sources are not known yet, or are destructive (like much higher food prices....) It is beyone stupidity to ignore our own resources while outsourcing our energy needs to other countries. Whether you like it or not, WE will need OIL for a LONG time to come. Your fantasies notwithstanding. We have an industry, usable affordable products, and vast infrustructure that supports fossil based energy. It is NOT going anywhere, mostly because there is NOTHING to replace it, and won't be anytime soon. Please argue against that fact...I defy you too.
- And we should maximize our coal production/usage, build new and more efficient refineries, nuclear power, and responsible/real alternatives (which does NOT mean government mandated anything)
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
What "games" have I suggested playing with "unproven methods"? post them here, idiot. Is solar unproven? Wind? What "infrastructure" are you talking about? |
Bio fuels, ethanol, solar... There is no infrastructure to support bio fuels or mass production and delivery of bio fuels and or ethanol. THere are few products that support those types of fuels, especially when you consider products consumers will demand. THere is precious little industry and distribution for those fuels. THat WILL NOT change anytime soon. It simply wont, despite how much you hope it will.
Solar is still very expensive (YOU being the prime example) You might be able to post some story about some wonder-solar energy type or new product. But the facts are that solar is relatively non existent to the vast majority of Americans because of its cost. ANOTHER fact that will not change anytime soon.
I have no problem with wind power...but it seems that the limosuine Libs like the Kennedy clan, or the moonbats in the enviro or animal rights movement have serious problems with wind power and move to block its implementation. Maybe you should point your anger and hate at them...
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
I have stated many times in this forum that I think it's bullshit that Kennedy fought that wind farm. Unless he could prove it would do real damage to the environment where it was to be located (he didn't), he should have used this as an example of inviting this technology to your neighborhood. |
Then you are officially calling Kennedy a hypocrite??? We may have agreement here. :)
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
This is not a response.
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions means regulating the corporations you love so much, asshole. |
Which is one of the goals of the alarmist movement. Thanks for stating it so plainly.
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Lame response.
What resources are you in favor of conserving? How? And what am I "only willing to go half way" about? Post examples with quotes. |
You just said that you are unwilling to maximize our own resources. Just scroll up for the proof of that, or did you forget already.???
I conserve all the time..shut lights off, have relatively fuel efficient cars, and support development of reasonable alternatives. (cars like the Volt, for example..which could be part of a REAL solution)
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Another non response.
You did not address even a single point he made about the reasons nuclear is not the future.
You're right, he IS sensible, you are not. The part you can't escape now is that your source is much closer to my side of this argument than your do nothing, ignore the problem position. Your source wants to get AWAY from dirty fossil fuels because they are running out and cause EXPENSIVE and deadly wars (does your hero Lomborg factor in the costs of wars fought for oil?), your source wants to push technologies that are already HERE. Maybe you don't understand what PUSH means? That means getting them out there as much as possible, as fast as possible.
Your source says we must look at taking action like an insurance policy against what MIGHT happen. If it doesn't happen, then we have done nothing except clean up our society and show we care about the world we live in.....
His writings could not be farther from the corporate, oil-drenched bullshit you post in this forum, you fucking idiot. |
When are YOU going to address what he said in the original article???? In YOUR words??? (not some alarmist named david, who posts at an alarmist website) Why can you only comment on that which he has written previously???
Hurry and look at the alarmist websites for them to tell you what to say... |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Lets look at the multiple problems with this statement:
- No one is talking about 'drilling holes every 5 feet' What we are talking about is MAXIMIZING OUR resources. WHich means tapping into the known BILLIONS of barrels in AnWR and off the coasts.
- It will take 6-9 years to get oil from ANWR, and that is a reason FOR starting sooner rather than later you dumbass !!!!!!! Your scenario says that we get to the point where we really need that oil, but can't get it for 6-9 years because we have NOT started the process yet !!! What a WONDERFUL energy policy that is !!
- THis is NOT about gas prices !!!! Why do you need to interject gas prices into the argument when we are talking about our supply of oil ????
- YOUR idea is to ignore the known and usable resources we have, in search of some fantasy of flying cars fueled by some magic wand somewhere. (especially when the consequences of those other sources are not known yet, or are destructive (like much higher food prices....) It is beyone stupidity to ignore our own resources while outsourcing our energy needs to other countries. Whether you like it or not, WE will need OIL for a LONG time to come. Your fantasies notwithstanding. We have an industry, usable affordable products, and vast infrustructure that supports fossil based energy. It is NOT going anywhere, mostly because there is NOTHING to replace it, and won't be anytime soon. Please argue against that fact...I defy you too.
- And we should maximize our coal production/usage, build new and more efficient refineries, nuclear power, and responsible/real alternatives (which does NOT mean government mandated anything)
Bio fuels, ethanol, solar... There is no infrastructure to support bio fuels or mass production and delivery of bio fuels and or ethanol. THere are few products that support those types of fuels, especially when you consider products consumers will demand. THere is precious little industry and distribution for those fuels. THat WILL NOT change anytime soon. It simply wont, despite how much you hope it will.
Solar is still very expensive (YOU being the prime example) You might be able to post some story about some wonder-solar energy type or new product. But the facts are that solar is relatively non existent to the vast majority of Americans because of its cost. ANOTHER fact that will not change anytime soon.
I have no problem with wind power...but it seems that the limosuine Libs like the Kennedy clan, or the moonbats in the enviro or animal rights movement have serious problems with wind power and move to block its implementation. Maybe you should point your anger and hate at them...
Then you are officially calling Kennedy a hypocrite??? We may have agreement here. :)
Which is one of the goals of the alarmist movement. Thanks for stating it so plainly.
You just said that you are unwilling to maximize our own resources. Just scroll up for the proof of that, or did you forget already.???
I conserve all the time..shut lights off, have relatively fuel efficient cars, and support development of reasonable alternatives. (cars like the Volt, for example..which could be part of a REAL solution)
When are YOU going to address what he said in the original article???? In YOUR words??? (not some alarmist named david, who posts at an alarmist website) Why can you only comment on that which he has written previously???
Hurry and look at the alarmist websites for them to tell you what to say... |
Bwaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, why bring gas prices into the discussion? Those don't affect people's lives at all, do they? They have nothing to do with a discussion about oil, right?!!! LOL!!!!!!!!
The US has 5% of the world's population, yet we use 25% of the world's oil supply and our own country has only 3% of the world's proven oil reserves. The fact that you think we can drill our way to being independent of foreign oil only proves what a fucking tard you are.
I'm sure you know the US Geological Survey says only 6.7 billion barrels could be profitably taken from ANWR, right? That's TOTAL. We use 7.3 billion barrels every YEAR, you fucking idiot! And the same USGS says if we started today it would take 10 years to see the first ANWR oil hit the market.
Try more lies, idiot.
Your own source debunks your ideas about coal and nuclear.... you should try reading his other thoughts sometime! :jj::jj: :jj: :jj:
You should also read what he has to say about solar and how the cost comes down dramatically the more panels are purchased. He also reminded you that energy companies are interfering with legislation that would help make solar more affordable..
biofuels and ethanol DO use the existing infrastructure, idiot. You fill up your tank at the same gas stations for all of them. If you are honest about wanting to get this country off of foreign oil, it will take a combination of technologies. Cellulosic ethanol can come from many sources. The grasses that can be used to make it can be grown in places where other crops won't grow. More and more plants for making this are popping up across the country and they take a fraction of the time and money an oil refinery takes to get going. Biodiesel is another option that makes sense. Low sulfur diesel fuel makes it much cleaner than it used to be and diesel vehicles are much more efficient.
And nice job avoiding the facts from the realclimate post :jj: :jj:
Still waiting for the quotes of me advocating "flying cars" and all of these other "fantasies".
I recommend you read the rest of your own sources writings to get a clue as to why you are such a tool. :jj: |
|
|
|
|
|
