Global Warming?

[EE_Bota]

So, you must think I left out a rolleyes smirk after the thumbsup? FTR, I pay pretty close attention to what I post and probably wouldnt err there - or would note and fix it. I appreciate carrying info forward honestly.
... I also know that you have not said "it" cant be done. The 2nd is conversational rather than pointed in your direction.
larry

I think I have are hard time gathering the meaning of short posts in general for some reason. Maybe the brevity of a short message denies me the amount of context I need to be sure I understand. But I felt I needed to say something to make sure no one thought I said that those technologies don't work. Defining "don't work" would be a necessary first step, so I'd be more likely to say something pretty specific, and form it as a question, or express it as a concern.

 

[Cat_Driver]

Everything you needed to know about Global Warming

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc]"If I wanted America to fail" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[crash325]

Everything you needed to know about Global Warming

"If I wanted America to fail" - YouTube

Everyone should watch that video. It is ever so true. If given another 4 years it could happen.

 

[Loren49]

Biased, one sided, factually lacking bit of propaganda. I would welcome a discussion based on factual analysis of most of the agenda of the clearly political presentation. What does it offer that has any relevance to global warming? Or any solution to any problem?:confused2:

Loren

 

[Rob-D]

A lot better than lies, BS, and phony (discredited) links.

I know that you are saving the world all by yourself. Or at least claim to.
Your going to straighten out all us Dummies and get us on the right track.

OK Greenies, warmies and liberals, get your self's in lock step. Its time parrot all the same old BS one more time. Its our way or Not at all.

Not a word on your 3 Phase DC current. Maybe it don't work.

22% for to days is just great, I say great. Since there are only 365 days in a year, What a big boost that will be. Of course the power co will have to charge extra cause its getting "Free" energy.

Well its free but we had to pay all those folks getting money back, so you get to pay more.

Socialism or Communism at work.

It's not about me!

It's not free energy, it cost me to put the systems in, both monetarily and man hours. The government subsidizes it just like the government subsidizes other technology that we all pay for. You get the benefit of less pollution and a stronger infrastructure. We go to war, something we all pay for, to supposedly protect future generations, we protect the environment for future generations too.

Disprove the links to wind in Texas, disprove the links to the permafrost in Alaska.

Again, calling people liars and phonies means you're out of ammo, it's intellectual bankruptcy.
You can't make statements like wood sitting around rotting gives of the same same toxins as wood burning, that we have coal pollution under control, etc. and expect to have any credibility.

Rob

 

[SPYDERLK]

Biased, one sided, factually lacking bit of propaganda. I would welcome a discussion based on factual analysis of most of the agenda of the clearly political presentation. What does it offer that has any relevance to global warming? Or any solution to any problem?:confused2:

Loren

Yeah. And the mantra of self praise, anti regulation, and entitled consumption act effectively on the unwary as a diversion from real problem solving. Investment toward an atmosphere conducive to innovative and coordinated solution sets is what we need. We lose too much by hanging back instead of leading.
...Japan has been stomped. I think they will innovate out of it. If we dont participate in that forefront we will truly decline.
larry

 

[Rob-D]

Everything you needed to know about Global Warming

"If I wanted America to fail" - YouTube

If I wanted America to fail, I would ignore melting permafrost in Alaska that destroys people's homes and whole towns. I would ignore leaking coal slurries destroying land, homes and causing cancer. I would let coal energy pay a small fine for uncapped coal stacks that cause so much acid rain that our oceans are in trouble and leave once abundent lakes and rivers fishless. I would choke people with higher fuel prices while doing everything I could to stop individual autonomy and alternate sources of energy.

If I wanted America to fail I would buy congress with lobbies enable corporations to have the same rights as individuals so I could control the government and the media. I would tell Americans it's OK to use 25% of the world's resources that they pay corpororations to supply to them. I would tell them to buy and hire people like Ed Bernays to manipulate what they buy. I would control a congress so that it fought wars to protect corporate interests. I would discourage new technologies and diminsh their usefullness.

And I would make videos that never mention the massive pollution from fossil fuels, that the WHO has said is making us sick. I would never mention the number of small farmers losing their farms to big agribusiness that pumps herbicides and pesticides into the land and then sues small farmers when the seeds blow on their fields. I would buy up researchers when they find that pesticides I produce have caused Colony Colapse Disorder and attempt bury the information.

Blamed for Bee Collapse, Monsanto Buys Bee Research Firm

Blamed for Bee Collapse, Monsanto Buys Leading Bee Research Firm


Global Warming Forces an Alaska Town to Relocate | 80beats | Discover Magazine

I would discourage biodiversity in farming that reduces the need for pesticides and herbicides for monocrops that require more of it and I would buy up all the seed companies so I could monopolize seed and make "terminator seeds" so farmers would have to buy new seeds from me every year.

Revealed: how seed market is controlled by Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow & DuPont - The Ecologist

Graphic illustrates how just five biotech giants have increased their control of the global seed market, promoting monoculture farming and making it harder for farmers to find alternative sources of seeds

I would shift the blame for our failing country to the industries that threaten my energy monopoly. I would ignore history and the parallels to the fall of the Roman Empire, Eisenhower's famous warning about the dangers of the "Military Industrial Complex" which brought down the Roman Empire. I would create an air of complacency and attempt to diminish the individuals who believe the environment is critical to human survival as "greenies" and misfits.

Look at what is happening on this thread, no answer to the melting permafrost in Alaska, no answer to the massive pollution and acid rain from uncapped coal stacks, the acid rain destroying the barrier reef, coral and the fish in our oceans.

Two percent of the world is rain forest:

Effects of anthropogenic environmental changes on amphibian diversity in the rain forests of eastern Madagascar | Mendeley

"Effects of anthropogenic environmental changes on amphibian diversity in the rain forests of eastern Madagascar"

So, who cares about a few frogs? We do, man can not exist without the rain forest, amphibians are what scientist call indicators, they indicate the health of the ecosystem.

Rain Forest Threats, Rain Forest Species - National Geographic

"More than half of Earth's rain forests have already been lost forever to the insatiable human demand for wood and arable land. Rain forests that once grew over 14 percent of the land on Earth now cover only about 6 percent. And if current deforestation rates continue, these critical habitats could disappear from the planet completely within the next hundred years.

The reasons for plundering rain forests are mainly economic. Wealthy nations drive demand for tropical timber, and cash-strapped governments often grant logging concessions at a fraction of the land's true value. Homesteader policies also encourage citizens to clear-cut forests for farms. Sustainable logging and harvesting rather than clear-cutting are among the strategies key to halting rain forest loss."

Rain forest is gone, we are gone, bees are gone, we are gone, oceans, coral reefs gone.... we are gone.

So who wouldn't mention this, who would want to shift the blame? Corporations who make videos in an attempt to isolate individuals and groups that threaten their march for money. and who gets that money? A hand full of people. The premise that we all benefit is hype, have your fuel cost gone down over the years or up... a lot!

What could reduce the price of fossil fuel? Competition, it is called economics, monopoles hate competition, they hate people like me who don't need them for energy, they want people to sit back and wait for a silver bullet they hope will never come while they bilk them and the environment for all they can get.

Great video!

"There's a sucker born every minute and sometimes they come in pairs"

PT Barnum

Rob

 

[Rob-D]

Yeah. And the mantra of self praise, anti regulation, and entitled consumption act effectively on the unwary as a diversion from real problem solving. Investment toward an atmosphere conducive to innovative and coordinated solution sets is what we need. We lose too much by hanging back instead of leading.
...Japan has been stomped. I think they will innovate out of it. If we dont participate in that forefront we will truly decline.
larry

Absolutely!

Innovation and diversity are what make a country and an economy strong. If the world is moving forward technologically and we are not we will be left in the mud.

Think about what would have happened if we never accepted the technology of the telephone. Communication in this country would have stopped, that's everyone here who wouldn't have answers when they had a tractor problem, a farming problem or need info on the best implement to buy. Medicine would stop and the transistor would have come from somewhere else. Look how that technology has improved our lives.

If I was selling energy would it be in my best interest or not to do whatever I could to dismiss other forms of energy? (That's metaphorical)

Rob

 

[crash325]

Going "Green"

I ride my bike to work. It seems so pure.

We're constantly urged to "go green" use less energy, shrink our carbon footprint, save the Earth. How? We should drive less, use ethanol, recycle plastic and buy things with the government's Energy Star label.

But what if much of going green is just bunk? Al Gore's group, Repower America, claims we can replace all our dirty energy with clean, carbon-free renewables. Gore says we can do it within 10 years.

"It's simply not possible," says Robert Bryce, author of "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy." "Nine out of 10 units of power that we consume are produced by hydrocarbons coal, oil and natural gas. Any transition away from those sources is going to be a decades-long, maybe even a century-long process. ... The world consumes 200 million barrels of oil equivalent in hydrocarbons per day. We would have to find the energy equivalent of 23 Saudi Arabias."

Bryce used to be a left-liberal, but then: "I educated myself about math and physics. I'm a liberal who was mugged by the laws of thermodynamics."

Bryce mocked the "green" value of my riding my bike to work:

"Let's assume you saved a gallon of oil in your commute (a generous assumption!). Global daily energy consumption is 9.5 billion gallons of oil equivalent. ... So by biking to work, you save the equivalent of one drop in 10 gasoline tanker trucks. Put another way, it's one pinch of salt in a 100-pound bag of potato chips."

How about wind power?

"Wind does not replace oil. This is one of the great fallacies, and it's one that the wind energy business continues to promote," Bryce said.

The problem is that windmills cannot provide a constant source of electricity. Wind turbines only achieve 10 percent to 20 percent of their maximum capacity because sometimes the wind doesn't blow.

"That means you have to keep conventional power plants up and running. You have to ramp them up to replace the power that disappears from wind turbines and ramp them down when power reappears."

Yet the media rave about Denmark, which gets some power from wind.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman says, "If only we could be as energy smart as Denmark."

"Friedman doesn't fundamentally understand what he's talking about," Bryce said.

Bryce's book shows that Denmark uses eight times more coal and 25 times more oil than wind.

If wind and solar power were practical, entrepreneurs would invest in it. There would be no need for government to take money from taxpayers and give it to people pushing green products.

Even with subsidies, "renewable" energy today barely makes a dent on our energy needs.

Bryce points out that energy production from every solar panel and windmill in America is less than the production from one coal mine and much less than natural gas production from Oklahoma alone.

But what if we build more windmills?

"One nuclear power plant in Texas covers about 19 square miles, an area slightly smaller than Manhattan. To produce the same amount of power from wind turbines would require an area the size of Rhode Island. This is energy sprawl." To produce the same amount of energy with ethanol, another "green" fuel, it would take 24 Rhode Islands to grow enough corn.

Maybe the electric car is the next big thing?

"Electric cars are the next big thing, and they always will be."

There have been impressive headlines about electric cars from my brilliant colleagues in the media. The Washington Post said, "Prices on electric cars will continue to drop until they're within reach of the average family."

That was in 1915.

In 1959, The New York Times said, "Electric is the car of the tomorrow."

In 1979, The Washington Post said, "GM has an electric car breakthrough in batteries, now makes them commercially practical."

I'm still waiting.

"The problem is very simple," Bryce said. "It's not political will. It's simple physics. Gasoline has 80 times the energy density of the best lithium ion batteries. There's no conspiracy here of big oil or big auto. It's a conspiracy of physics."

 

[Johnp33]

Wind and solar power is not, designed to be the only part of the power grid it is to be part of an complete system, with coal, nuclear and natural gas, as the control part of the system. The wind and solar is there to cut down on the fuel load needed to power an area.
I realise some of you like to be told what to think by less that 200 of the richest people in the country. That is great.
The way someone that actually thinks for themselves know you are a plant is you always have to hit all the little hot buttons, those you believe make you point. What they do is confirm you are just reprinting the party line. Bought and paid for.