climate change

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: climate change

Postby dudejcb » Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:12 pm

SpinnerMan wrote: Cooling towers look better than the ugly ass wind turbines..
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder... I suppose when towers are new they're at least clean, but it's a stretch to say they look better than anything.

SpinnerMan wrote: BTW, the windfarm operator is almost certainly going to purchase the land and then lease the unused land back to a farmer. I doubt they will lease the land, but even if they did they are not going to pay rent significantly above the value of the land that they are utilizing. Why would they? They would just go to a different farmer that will agree to a lower price.
perhaps you aren't thinking this through adequately. Wind resources are often geographically dictated. some sites are superior to others and many are located a long distance from transmission facilites. Location, location, location. If the site is on public land it is leased. Usually it's the same for projects located on farm land. Farmers, if they have land worth farming, are unlikely to sell and then lease it back so they lose control of their future.

GroundSwatter wrote:Somebody told me it took almost 5 years to get your plans approved and then another 5 to build it.
It really just does take that long to build multibillion dollar facilities. You can build a plant in the 4 - 5 year time frame from breaking first ground, but you have significant lead times to get the financing, order the large components, etc. [/quote]the lead time for a nuclear or coal plant these days is about 15 years. natural gas about 3 to 5, but then that puts upward pressure on the cost to heat your home...or those homes that use natural gas for heating. And as we've seen, natural gas prices can, and do, fluctuate wildly.


Rat Creek wrote:We are not being harmed by low level radiation, but that is because our body has repair mechanisms that can handle the damage caused by low levels of radiation. There is a point at which our body cannot repair it. How do I know this? I can guarantee you that I can kill that mouse with radiation. I can give it cancer. I can do a lot of bad things to it at very high levels. How does that translate to very low levels?
everyone is a bit different so whether one has an effect is somewhat indiviual in nature. Low level solar radiation causes skin and melanoma... not in everyone...but it increases the odds for everyone. Feeling lucky?
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5269
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho


Re: climate change

Postby dudejcb » Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:15 pm

dudejcb wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: Cooling towers look better than the ugly ass wind turbines..
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder... I suppose when towers are new they're at least clean, but it's a stretch to say they look better than anything.

SpinnerMan wrote: BTW, the windfarm operator is almost certainly going to purchase the land and then lease the unused land back to a farmer. I doubt they will lease the land, but even if they did they are not going to pay rent significantly above the value of the land that they are utilizing. Why would they? They would just go to a different farmer that will agree to a lower price.
perhaps you aren't thinking this through adequately. Wind resources are often geographically dictated. some sites are superior to others and many are located a long distance from transmission facilites. Location, location, location. If the site is on public land it is leased. Usually it's the same for projects located on farm land. Farmers, if they have land worth farming, are unlikely to sell and then lease it back so they lose control of their future.

GroundSwatter wrote:Somebody told me it took almost 5 years to get your plans approved and then another 5 to build it. It really just does take that long to build multibillion dollar facilities. You can build a plant in the 4 - 5 year time frame from breaking first ground, but you have significant lead times to get the financing, order the large components, etc.
the lead time for a nuclear or coal plant these days is about 15 years. natural gas about 3 to 5, but then that puts upward pressure on the cost to heat your home...or those homes that use natural gas for heating. And as we've seen, natural gas prices can, and do, fluctuate wildly. one advantage of gas-fired combined cycle plants is that they can be ramped up and down relativley quickly to match fluctuating winds. Harder to do with dams and there are fish and recreation considerations.


Rat Creek wrote:We are not being harmed by low level radiation, but that is because our body has repair mechanisms that can handle the damage caused by low levels of radiation. There is a point at which our body cannot repair it. How do I know this? I can guarantee you that I can kill that mouse with radiation. I can give it cancer. I can do a lot of bad things to it at very high levels. How does that translate to very low levels?
everyone is a bit different so whether one has an effect is somewhat indiviual in nature. Low level solar radiation causes skin and melanoma... not in everyone...but it increases the odds for everyone. Feeling lucky?
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5269
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: climate change

Postby samsquanch » Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:21 pm

Nobody has a problem with improving the enviroment and coming up with new ways to produce more efficiant energy. The problem is the propaganda about how to go about it. You can google God and it will give you all types of things. You shouldnt beleive everything you read on the internet.

That being said. The fact that both parties have such a deliberatly defined stance on the matter is what frightens me. Do i think that some of the stuff that we produce into the air can harm the enviroment you bet your *** i do, but to say that it is completely man made there is no way to prove it. If we could prove that you would think we would be able to predict our weather to a T and we all know that doesnt happen. Our climate changes, it has over millions of years. Ice age to now im pretty sure that the climate has changed just a little. The fact that there has been a huge increase in population alone will raise tempatures. A room is a lot warmer when there is 100 people in it rather than 2 no?

I just cant be spoon fed the crap thats out there and take some persons personal agenda and make it my own. For this to be presented and and made fact there has to be some sort of eurika moment that says this is it. Its a political too that is ruining the country more and more.
User avatar
samsquanch
hunter
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: climate change

Postby GroundSwatter » Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:01 pm

Dude,

I'm not opposed to green energy, but Windmills to me are huge eye sores. Are Nuclear Stacks much better, not really, but at least they're not littered all over the country side. The only time you really see a power plant is when you go fishing on the power plant lake drive right past it. Windmills are usually on the tops of hills in plain view and they are littered all over the country side.

Solar panels are great, but the technology still isn't quite there. My buddy was looking at putting solar panels on his new home, but it would take them 7 years for the solar panels to pay for themselves. This wouldn't be a big problem except the warranty on the panels was only 5 years.

I'm pushing for electric vehicles more than anyone, trust me I sell battery testing equipment, but they're not ready. The technology still isn't quite there for the average person to afford it. Auto companies are going to charge $65,000 for a car and the battery on that sucker isn't going to be warrantied past 5 years. Why is this a big deal? Who in their right mind would buy a $65K car to only have to spend another $5-6K on a battery 5 years down the road. Hybrids are a great intermediate solution, mostly b/c if your battery dies you can still run your car.

If the economy was at an all time high, you could potentially push these things through, but since we're in a recession, its not such a great idea to push these things through right now. In fact, its pretty stupid.
It's a fact that 70 percent of the people who purchase heavier tackle do so with the categorical I just lost a huge snook! Einstein Hairdo.The other 30 percent have either Tarpon Fever or are sporting a hand cramped into a claw from a deepwater grouper.
User avatar
GroundSwatter
hunter
 
Posts: 3643
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: GTMO from NE Texas

Re: climate change

Postby Redline29 » Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:17 pm

From American thinker...

Al Gore Ducks Warming Debate (Updated)
Otis A. Glazebrook IV

In an article in today's Wall Street Journal, John Fund reports that Al Gore
has refused to appear with Czech President Vaclav Klaus:


Once again Al Gore has ducked the chance to debate critics of his global
warming doomsday predictions. The former vice president loves to lecture
others on the need to address global warming, but usually insists on
appearing alone and largely unchallenged at conferences.

At the Wall Street Journal's ECO:nomics conference in Santa Barbara,
California, Mr. Gore was initially scheduled to appear with Czech President
Vaclav Klaus, a noted skeptic on global warming. Mr. Gore changed his
schedule so he could appear the previous day. President Klaus told me this
week that the major reason he agreed to travel from Europe was the chance to
interact with Mr. Gore. "I don't understand all of this reluctance to engage
with others," he told me.

Several other critics of Mr. Gore also tried to interact with him at the
conference -- with little success. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at
Harvard, asked Mr. Gore during the Q-and-A period what exactly he was trying
to accomplish in practical terms with his proposals. Mr. Gore ignored the
substance of the question and snidely said he was trying to save humanity.


If the theory of man made global warming is such a slam dunk, why is Mr. Gore afraid to debate?

UPDATE:

Marc Sheppard, who is covering the International Conference on Climate Change for American Thinker, adds the following,

Gore has refused to debate time and time again. In fact, he has been forced
to use the tired term "The Debate Is Over" so many times, he may as well
have it stamped to his head.

At last week's Wall Street Journal Eco-nomics conference, Gore was directly
challenged to debate by Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg. His reply:


"But you know, the scientific community has dealt with this - the approach
is extremely misleading, and the scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse."


The Goracle has similarly squirmed out of debates with Dennis Avery and Lord
Monckton of Brenchley, just to name a few.

Monday morning at ICCC, California Congressman Tom McClintock informed the
audience that Heartland had offered to sponsor a debate at Oxford University
against any of three skeptics and in the format of Gore's choice.

But the man who would be leader of the green world will not accept any such
challenge. And the reason is quite simple. As Lord Monckton put it so
colorfully yesterday in his rousing address to close the conference: The
bed-wetter knows he'll lose.


I must say...well put.
20 Jan 2009...the beginning of an error.
User avatar
Redline29
hunter
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 11:55 pm
Location: NW, PA

Re: climate change

Postby MacMan » Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:37 pm

Redline29 wrote:From American thinker...

Al Gore Ducks Warming Debate (Updated)
Otis A. Glazebrook IV

In an article in today's Wall Street Journal, John Fund reports that Al Gore
has refused to appear with Czech President Vaclav Klaus:


Once again Al Gore has ducked the chance to debate critics of his global
warming doomsday predictions. The former vice president loves to lecture
others on the need to address global warming, but usually insists on
appearing alone and largely unchallenged at conferences.

At the Wall Street Journal's ECO:nomics conference in Santa Barbara,
California, Mr. Gore was initially scheduled to appear with Czech President
Vaclav Klaus, a noted skeptic on global warming. Mr. Gore changed his
schedule so he could appear the previous day. President Klaus told me this
week that the major reason he agreed to travel from Europe was the chance to
interact with Mr. Gore. "I don't understand all of this reluctance to engage
with others," he told me.

Several other critics of Mr. Gore also tried to interact with him at the
conference -- with little success. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at
Harvard, asked Mr. Gore during the Q-and-A period what exactly he was trying
to accomplish in practical terms with his proposals. Mr. Gore ignored the
substance of the question and snidely said he was trying to save humanity.


If the theory of man made global warming is such a slam dunk, why is Mr. Gore afraid to debate?

UPDATE:

Marc Sheppard, who is covering the International Conference on Climate Change for American Thinker, adds the following,

Gore has refused to debate time and time again. In fact, he has been forced
to use the tired term "The Debate Is Over" so many times, he may as well
have it stamped to his head.

At last week's Wall Street Journal Eco-nomics conference, Gore was directly
challenged to debate by Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg. His reply:


"But you know, the scientific community has dealt with this - the approach
is extremely misleading, and the scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse."


The Goracle has similarly squirmed out of debates with Dennis Avery and Lord
Monckton of Brenchley, just to name a few.

Monday morning at ICCC, California Congressman Tom McClintock informed the
audience that Heartland had offered to sponsor a debate at Oxford University
against any of three skeptics and in the format of Gore's choice.

But the man who would be leader of the green world will not accept any such
challenge. And the reason is quite simple. As Lord Monckton put it so
colorfully yesterday in his rousing address to close the conference: The
bed-wetter knows he'll lose.


I must say...well put.


Great post, very informative; bed-wetter is better than fag I guess. . .
:wink:
<\\\><
MM
User avatar
MacMan
hunter
 
Posts: 7861
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Someplace, TN

Re: climate change

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:02 am

Dude, I noticed you did not comment on the fact that you would have to put out 1,000s of huge wind mills to 10,000s of big windmils or more small windmils to replace one conventional power plant site? Do you really think we can site this many windmills, build that many roads, produce that much concrete and steel, and build that much transmition lines in an environmentally friendly way? After you use up all the good sites, it gets worse. We are at about 1% of our energy coming from these ugly-ass things and they are already all over the damn place. To get to 10%, they will be at 10 times as many places. You honestly think this is possible. I know you talk about efficiency, but we have yet to lower our per capita use of electricity. We get more from it, but we don't use less. Do the math. We need too damn many of these things and that can't work out environmentally.

dudejcb wrote:Frankly, I don't understand everyone's opposition to environmentally beneficial notions. If we become more energy efficient, more productive, reinvigorate our (seriously dated) manufactuing base, and also decrease our dependence on a finite resource of fossil fuels...and it helps the airshed...what is the big deal.
Nobody is opposed to these things. They just are not more "efficient" if they cost more. The cost isn't just money. In the case of the windmills it is a hell of a lot of land, it more steel and concrete manufacturing (you know those low energy intensity environmentally benign industries), it's an unreliable energy supply (the sun doesn't shine at night and not a lot of days and the wind isn't usually blowing at the optimum speed and sometimes not at all). If I can pull my boat with my 4WD truck (I own a ranger and not a Suburban) at a lower cost, I am all for it, but I'm not for an undersized, underpowered and overpriced vehicle that just doesn't do what I need to do.

dudejcb wrote:Our manufacturing base (what's left) is old, generally. We need to retool to be competitve.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The only problem with the manufacturing base is that union employment is down or that is the reason the left is worried about it because we know how pro-manufacturing they are :lol3: We manufacture more stuff with greater efficiency than we ever have. That is a fact. Go look it up. I'm sure manufacturing is down in 2009 and maybe 2008, but it is way above what it was if you go back a few years and further in the past. The factories are doing what you are doing, well except for the highly unionized ones, because even if they do retool, they cannot lay off the people that are displaced by the retooled factory. So what has happened is that the highly unionized factories have been displaced by other companies that were not burdened by the unions. This is why GM, Ford, and Chrysler need to go bankrupt. Why retool? So you can replace expensive workers with cheap technology. I'm not going to explain why this is good for everybody. If you don't believe this, do you think we would be better off if we were all following mules around the field like my grandfather did when he was a child or driving a tractor like my mother did when she was 10?

GroundSwatter wrote:If we use nuclear power, guess what a bi-product of that wonderful technology is, thats right, good ol H2.
:no: Nope, not a byproduct. It is very expensive to produce hydrogen. We are working on ways to do it more economically, but right now, it is just very expensive. That applies to nuclear, coal, wind, ...

If we can figure out how to cheaply produce hydrogen, I don't think it would go to fuel cells. There currently is a commercial market for hydrogen and most of it is already being used to push your car around. They use it to get more gallons of gasoline from a barrel of oil. Your car is already in small part hydrogen powered. If we could solve the technical and scientific problems with producing cheap hydrogen from water or some other source than natural gas, a much greater fraction of the energy used to push your car around would come from hydrogen, but it would still be in the form of gasoline. No reason to do otherwise, unless you believe the CO2 myth.

dudejcb wrote:the lead time for a nuclear or coal plant these days is about 15 years. natural gas about 3 to 5, but then that puts upward pressure on the cost to heat your home...or those homes that use natural gas for heating. And as we've seen, natural gas prices can, and do, fluctuate wildly.
It doesn't require 15 years to do it. It requires probably 7 to 8 if we go gang busters. Normal conditions are about 10 from starting the permitting to first generation. The reason it is so long is the perceived risk. Is Obama really going to bankrupt people that build coal plants? The threat of carbon taxes has real slowed things down because of the fear of investing the money in something that the President said is going to go belly up. Gas turbines are much lower risk. They are basically jet engines and can be thrown up quickly and the pay back period is much shorter, which greatly reduces the risk of losing your initial investment. They are a safer bet and that is what investers will take, even if they expect to make less money. The lower return is basically the insurance premium for a safer investment. Look at CDs versus junk bonds. Why wouldn't everybody invest in junk bonds because they have a higher profit?

dudejcb wrote:everyone is a bit different so whether one has an effect is somewhat indiviual in nature. Low level solar radiation causes skin and melanoma... not in everyone...but it increases the odds for everyone. Feeling lucky?
That is ultraviolate radiation. That is actual not the radiation I was talking about. Ionizing radiation, which is what I mean, when I say radiation is x-rays and gamma rays (which are light waves with much shorter frequency than ultraviolate, light, infrared, microwave, etc.) beta particles, alpha particles, neutrons, and the cosmic stuff (muon, pions, etc.) that rain down from space. You are correct. It is a probablistic phenomenon. People cannot deal with probabilities. No matter how little exposure you have to the sun, there is a non-zero chance of getting melanoma. Does that mean we should live in a cave?

I get exposed to more ionizing radiation by flying for work than I ever did working at the nuclear power plants or anything I have ever down in my job. Frequent business travels get more radiation exposure than something like 95% (forget the number) of radiation workers. Commercial transcontinental airline pilots and crew get significantly above nearly all radiation workers. People that live in Colorada get more radiation exposure than people that live in Illinois. Should we outlaw people from living in Colorado, because if the difference were from a manmade source, it would be illegal. Large fractions of the earth do not meet the EPA and NRC standards. In nearly all cases it is illegal to put uranium mining byproducts back in the mine because it exceeds EPA standards even though disturbing it is not the reason. It did before we touched it and it didn't increase by digging it out and filling the hole back with the left over (tails). Thanks pseudo-environmentalists.

dudejcb wrote:I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder... I suppose when towers are new they're at least clean, but it's a stretch to say they look better than anything.
BTW, cooling towers are not required for nuke or coal plants. You need a heat sink, so if you are near the ocean, you use that. Most of them do not have cooling towers and here in Illinois, they either use lake Michigan or build a very large lake. Boy do those bath tubs stack up the geese in the winter when everything else is froze up.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: climate change

Postby jrockncash » Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:20 am

The farmers that whore out their land just get a yearly check. They get paid an amount per tower and then get that sum per year. I think they sign a long term contract to leave them up for as long as the company wants. It has destroyed a local wintering range for deer and elk here. Hard for a nice buck to relax and save energy when a meth head electrician is driving through your living room every 20 minutes.



Douche Belt :lol3:


Kyoto has done nothing but screw the people that signed it. Sometimes when someone wants to put a spoonfull of worthless medicine in your mouth it pays to slap that spoon out of their hand and tell them to find some that works.
There is more value to land not developed than simply monetary. Aldo Leopold

The only thing necessary for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Edmond Burke

What could be worse than getting humped by Bears? Bubbles Trailer Park Boys
User avatar
jrockncash
hunter
 
Posts: 2917
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:06 pm
Location: yelling at kids to get off my lawn.

Re: climate change

Postby DuckinFool » Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:50 pm

I want my global warming back. I am tired of buying this propane and have got the fever to go fishing. :yes:
Recession-neighbor loses job...Depression-you lose job...Recovery-Obama loses job.
Image
Don't blame me.....I didn't vote for him !!!
User avatar
DuckinFool
hunter
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:47 am
Location: Southern Illinois

Re: climate change

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:45 am

Remember all the global warming nuts predicting the radical increase in hurricanes and natural disasters, when they were on the upswing. So wouldn't a downswing indicate that there is less energy in the atmosphere (i.e., a lower average temperature). These clowns are wrong about their predictions over and over and over again, but it never slows them down.

Here's good informational article.

Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity [still] lowest in 30-years
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

Going up proved nothing and going down proves nothing, except those that said going up proved something were not actually scientists and were just idiots. This quotes from the article are what I was saying then and now.

This should not be a surprise to scientists since the natural variability in climate dominates any detectable or perceived global warming impact when it comes to measuring yearly integrated tropical cyclone activity.


Under global warming scenarios, hurricane intensity is expected to increase (on the order of a few percent)
That means an extra hurricane or two every few years at most or 10 to 20 points on the following chart of intensity, which is completely buried in the noise of year to year variability.

Image
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: climate change

Postby dudejcb » Sun Mar 15, 2009 11:41 am

All,

I'm confident I never said nuclear wasn't part of the solution. I don't think I ever said I wanted thousand upon thousands of windmills any and everywhere. They are apart as is solar, geothermal, nuclear (although we need to get our crap together regarding long-term storage) ...and if we can learn how to clean it sufficiently ...coal.

Deer and elk don't like to lie down beneath a wind mill huh. Do they like to lie down near a gas or oil well? Have you flown over Wyoming, Colorado and Utah and looked down to see all the well pads? Maybe they should put a windmill on each well pad since that site is already screwed and it would be a handy way to scare wildlife away from the toxic water ponds.

Lastly, if you do not believe global worming or climate change is occurring, please explain why the permafrost is melting and why glaciers and polar ice caps are retreating/shrinking.

Also, if we were to experience cataclysmic volcanism, where global shading brought on global cooling, then the right thing to do might be to burn baby burn. But that's not our present situation is it?
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5269
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: climate change

Postby Redline29 » Sun Mar 15, 2009 12:52 pm

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/ ... age_1.html


And I thought there was "no more debate"
20 Jan 2009...the beginning of an error.
User avatar
Redline29
hunter
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 11:55 pm
Location: NW, PA

Re: climate change

Postby dudejcb » Sun Mar 15, 2009 1:35 pm

From a practical capitalist point of view, the point i've tried to make before is: the world has decided, rightly or wrongly, that warmng is accuring and greenhouse gases are to blame. So as capitalist businessmen we have an opportunity to "make some hay" by leveraging the economic curcumstances that eminate from the decision.

Making money won't hurt you. Spending alittle more for energy will perhaps cause some peple to implement conservation and efficiency measures and that will reduce our energy dependence. That is a generally a good thing long term, especially if the energy being consumed is fossil type.

So tell me again why this is so bad. It's only bad to the extent it impacts our personal momentary greed as far as I can tell.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5269
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: climate change

Postby Redline29 » Sun Mar 15, 2009 8:37 pm

So the only action is a knee jerk reaction that could do more harm than good to an unproven theory? Yeah...that makes sence.
20 Jan 2009...the beginning of an error.
User avatar
Redline29
hunter
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 11:55 pm
Location: NW, PA

Re: climate change

Postby jrockncash » Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:24 pm

Redline you talking about Ethanol? Ohhhh thats right the lefties force fed us that and what happened? Do I want oil rigs all over Wyoming? Hell NO!! Makes much more sense to me to add a few nuke plants that take up a small amount of space vs tens of thousands of acres. Oh and it produces exponentially more energy.

Somebody please come along with a clue in washington.
There is more value to land not developed than simply monetary. Aldo Leopold

The only thing necessary for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Edmond Burke

What could be worse than getting humped by Bears? Bubbles Trailer Park Boys
User avatar
jrockncash
hunter
 
Posts: 2917
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:06 pm
Location: yelling at kids to get off my lawn.

Re: climate change

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:42 am

dudejcb wrote:I'm confident I never said nuclear wasn't part of the solution. I don't think I ever said I wanted thousand upon thousands of windmills any and everywhere. They are apart as is solar, geothermal, nuclear (although we need to get our crap together regarding long-term storage) ...and if we can learn how to clean it sufficiently ...coal.
I used to think that wind and solar were part of the solution as well, but after seeing what they do to the country side. They are raping too much land for too little benefit. We have better ways to do the same thing. They produce about 1% of the electricity. They have no hope of making a real dent in our needs without raping too much land. Solar will be just as bad. We don't have to pave over that much land. Yes, you did say you want thousands of windmills anywhere and everywhere. That's what being part of the solution means. It takes 10's of thousands if not 100's of thousands of windmills to be part of the solution. It's simple math. If you want windmills supplying 5%, 10% or more of our energy (not just electricy) demand, you simply need a whole hell of a lot of windmills. Get real data and it is simply math as to how many you need.


dudejcb wrote:Lastly, if you do not believe global worming or climate change is occurring, please explain why the permafrost is melting and why glaciers and polar ice caps are retreating/shrinking.
That does not prove cataclysmic manmade global warming. Climate change has always been occurring. If you haven't ever noticed, we do not live in a static environment. Just look at the huge variability in the 24 month global tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (now that's a mouth full). It varies by a factor of two over just 3 decades. That is natural variability. The climate varies over time and it varies widely. It did long before man existed and it will continue to vary widely in the future. It hasn't magically become static as the global warming zealots try to imply. Now how on earth do we separate natural variability from miniscule predictions of man induced changes. How do you see 2 or 3% change in something that varies natural by 100%? Go review your statistical sampling. Even something that is "statistically significant" at the 95% confidence level still has a 1 out of 20 chance of being purely by random chance.

dudejcb wrote:Also, if we were to experience cataclysmic volcanism, where global shading brought on global cooling, then the right thing to do might be to burn baby burn. But that's not our present situation is it?
If global warming is disasterous, then wouldn't global cooling be a good thing. This three little bears view of the earth is just silly. That's too hot and that's too cold, but this one is just right. Warming is good and cooling is bad, but not for everybody. Some people would benefit from cooling and some would be harmed by warming. On average, every indication is the world is too cool and not too hot and it for damn sure isn't sitting on some magical temperature where upticks or downticks in the temperature are both disasterous.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: climate change

Postby dudejcb » Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:21 am

jrockncash wrote:Redline you talking about Ethanol? Ohhhh thats right the lefties force fed us that and what happened? Do I want oil rigs all over Wyoming? Hell NO!! Makes much more sense to me to add a few nuke plants that take up a small amount of space vs tens of thousands of acres. Oh and it produces exponentially more energy.

Somebody please come along with a clue in washington.

It wasn't the "lefties" or the "greenies" that forced corn ethanol down your throats... it was large ag (Monsanto, Archer Daniels, etc.) and their Republican helpers (while Bush was still there and the R's had congressional majorities), who siezed the opportunity of green looking sheep's clothing to twist the sitaution and make bank...at the expense of all of us...say tax breaks and incentives. This happens a lot; think oil companies.

Bush especially was good at predetermined science that funneled cash to his pals or away from his supposed enemies. Either way political distortions for money gives well intended notions a bad reputation...especially when the gullible, or purposely uncritical, are quick to blame the wrong people for the misdeeds, as a handy smear tactic. stop it.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5269
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: climate change

Postby dudejcb » Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:38 am

Redline29 wrote:http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/the_clear_and_cohesive_message_1.html

And I thought there was "no more debate"
Hmmm. The Heartland Institute sounds a lot like the Hudson Institute. From Source Watch:"This article is part of the Coal Issues portal on SourceWatch.
The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit organization "to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems".[1] [i]Heartland campaigns against what it refers to as "junk science"; supports "common-sense environmentalism", such as opposition to the the Kyoto Protocol aimed at countering global warming, and promoting genetically engineered crops and products; it supports the privatization of public services; it opposes tobacco control measures such as tobacco tax increases and denies the health effects of second-hand smoke; it supports the introduction of school vouchers; and it promotes the deregulation of health care insurance. [/i](could it be any clearer what their agenda is? this truly is drinking the coolaid...empahsis Dude)

In its 2008 annual report to supporters it states that its "primary audiences are the nation’s 8,300 state and national elected officials and approximately 8,400 local government officials."[2]For five of the groups priority policy areas Heartland produces a 20-page tabloid-sized publications monthly newspaper which are primarily distributed to elected officials, journalists and donors. (The five publications are Budget & Tax News, Environment & Climate News, Health Care News, Infotech & Telecom News and School Reform News. (Web versions are also posted to the group's website).[2] Heartland also hosts PolicyBot, which it refers to as the "Internet's most extensive clearing-house for the work of free-market think tanks." The database contains 22,000 documents from 350 U.S. right-wing think tanks and advocacy groups.[3]

The institute was founded in 1984 by David H. Padden, now the President of Padco Lease Corporation and Joseph L. Bast, Heartland's President and CEO.[4] In 2007 it spent over $5.8 million on its activities.[5]"

Now let's see who's behind American Thinker. again, from Source Watch:
"American Thinker (AT) is a conservative daily internet publication. According to it website, American Thinker presents a "thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans." [1]

There is ample evidence to support the notion that AT serves as part of the right wing's echo chamber.

A good example of this can be found in a December 5th, 2007 piece on the National Intelligence Estimate report on the state of Iran's Nuclear weapon's program.[1]

Writer Ed Lasky first refers to an Editorial in the New York Sun inferring that the intelligence community is against President Bush.[2] Lasky concludes that "the National Intelligence Estimate was cooked up by bureaucrats eager to embarrass George Bush and transform US policy towards Iran." To substantiate his argument he goes on to quote an editorial from the Wall Street Journal[3] which avers the authors of the NIE study are: "former State Department officials with previous reputations that should lead one to doubt their conclusions. All three are ex-bureaucrats who, as is generally true of State Department types, favor endless rounds of negotiation and "diplomacy" and oppose confrontation. These three officials, according to the Wall Street Journal, have 'reputations as hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials'." This statement "Hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials", restated as fact in the AT article, is quoted and requoted by rightwing blogs and news sources throughout the media.[4][5][6]

Ultimately this type of statement winds up being echoed by mainstream pundits such as Rush Limbaugh.[7]"

Well gee whiz ifit's good enough for Rush Limbaugh, a guy know for his truthyness, then it's good enough for Redline. But not for me. I'll stick with the Union of Concerned Scientists, they don't appear as though they're trying to profit from this. And what does Source Watch reeal about them?

"Union of Concerned Scientists
From SourceWatch


This article is part of the Coal Issues portal on SourceWatch.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) "is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices." [1]

Contents [hide]
1 Support for a Moratorium on New Coal Plants

[edit]Support for a Moratorium on New Coal Plants
In a study released in October, 2008, the Union of Concerned Scientists called for a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants that do not capture their carbon dioxide emissions. The authors of the study wrote that the United States should:

Stop building new coal-fired power plants without CCS. Each new coal plant built without CCS represents a major long-term source of CO2. It is not safe to assume that new coal plants built today without CCS could cost-effectively add it later, because the cost of CCS (considerable even when included in the plant’s original design) would be much higher if added as a retrofit. The federal government should therefore adopt a strong performance standard limiting CO2 emissions from new coal plants, which will prevent the construction of any plant not employing CCS from the outset. Until such a policy is put in place, state regulators should evaluate proposed plants using a projected range of prices those plants would likely have to pay for their CO2 emissions under a capand-trade program.[2]

[edit]Agriculture, factory farming and concern over use of antibiotics
In 2001, the Union of Concerned Scientists announced that antibiotics in factory farms account for the overwhelming majority of all antibiotic use in the country. Antibiotics administered to people in the U.S. annually to treat diseases equal 3 million pounds; whereas antibiotics administered to livestock in the U.S. annually equal 24.6 million pounds. [3], [4] The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that antibiotics administered to livestock are approximately eight times the amount administered to people for illnesses. [5] See also Meat & Dairy industry, section 4.7."

What a bunch of kook! NOT! It appears their name ccurately reflects their position...they are concerned scientists! Not "American Thinkers" or a concervative think tank with an agenda that supports business as ususal interests, quid pro quo.

Smart up will ya.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5269
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: climate change

Postby jrockncash » Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:56 pm

So your saying that my state adopted the highest required percentage of ethanol around because of Bush and big buisness? Or maybe its because of our conservative values and big buisness medeling. Your nuts if you think that. Bush Deraingment Syndrom comes to mind. Do I think that Bush passed what he passed out of the kindness of his heart and his concern for the environment, No. But to think that this wasnt driven by left wing retards is just as silly.


Wind and solar are just feel good gimmicks. Put them in the cities and see how well they do then we can talk.
There is more value to land not developed than simply monetary. Aldo Leopold

The only thing necessary for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Edmond Burke

What could be worse than getting humped by Bears? Bubbles Trailer Park Boys
User avatar
jrockncash
hunter
 
Posts: 2917
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:06 pm
Location: yelling at kids to get off my lawn.

Re: climate change

Postby MacMan » Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:58 pm

While traveling home to Florida this weekend I met a lady on the plane traveling to Minnisota; I don't normally engage in superficial "plane" talk so to speak - but this was different - she was a patriot. After talking the entire time sharing all the BS - bail out's to breaking down of down to socialism for the ruling elite and on to the crap that Global warming is - she told me of a wind mill farm near her home - Gov't installed and everybody thought they were helping in supplying electricity - some 8 years after the installation it was finally reported there was no electrical buss to the site - and only last year were they actually connected. This BS continues to infuriate me along with all the other CRAP that Gov't (only 500 - 600 ruling class people) have done. I'm just about ready to hurt somone over the spending of my social security. . . :mad:

WAKE UP -

GBA
<\\\><
MM
User avatar
MacMan
hunter
 
Posts: 7861
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Someplace, TN

Re: climate change

Postby dudejcb » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:08 pm

jrockncash wrote:So your saying that my state adopted the highest required percentage of ethanol around because of Bush and big buisness? Or maybe its because of our conservative values and big buisness medeling. Your nuts if you think that. Bush Deraingment Syndrom comes to mind. Do I think that Bush passed what he passed out of the kindness of his heart and his concern for the environment, No. But to think that this wasnt driven by left wing retards is just as silly.


Wind and solar are just feel good gimmicks. Put them in the cities and see how well they do then we can talk.
you bring up a good point. Bsh could have been listenting to lefty retards. He, and you, should listen to the smart ones. As I recall corn prices went through the roof for a time and Missouri farmers and most corn farmers who could harvest (who'se fiels weren't flooded or buried in snoww too soon) made out like bandits. Wouldn't have been my first choice but who knows why the Missouri government decided to jump in up to their asses. Ask them. (my guess is that right wing retards are no smarter than left wing retards.)
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5269
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: climate change

Postby dudejcb » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:18 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:If global warming is disasterous, then wouldn't global cooling be a good thing. This three little bears view of the earth is just silly. That's too hot and that's too cold, but this one is just right. Warming is good and cooling is bad, but not for everybody. Some people would benefit from cooling and some would be harmed by warming. On average, every indication is the world is too cool and not too hot and it for damn sure isn't sitting on some magical temperature where upticks or downticks in the temperature are both disasterous.
hmmm. I don't think you're this dumb, but you make a strong argument otherwise.

Shall I explain meteorology: opposing predominat east-west wind belts; high and low pressures systems, high and low energy systems; jet streams and variable mixing of it all to create, you know, weather?

To make it simple, so all may understand; yes, we can stand some variability and things do change. extreme changes in either direction will be bad because at the rate it occurs, Darwinian evolution loses the race. That means we lose the race to survive. Ice age bad. Extreme heat age bad. This temperate mix is just right, so lets try to keep it... said Goldilocks...who apparently was smarter than most on DHC.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5269
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: climate change

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:48 pm

dudejcb wrote:To make it simple, so all may understand; yes, we can stand some variability and things do change. extreme changes in either direction will be bad because at the rate it occurs, Darwinian evolution loses the race. That means we lose the race to survive. Ice age bad. Extreme heat age bad. This temperate mix is just right, so lets try to keep it... said Goldilocks...who apparently was smarter than most on DHC.
So how much can we stand? How much are we going to have? How much variability is there? I know your clueless of these numbers, but you want to deprive most of the world of cheap energy. You and Obama accept the poverty as serving the common good to despite no proof that any changes will be easily tolerable. Did you ever notice how many people are killed in the third world by all kinds of normal things that do virtually no harm in our country. Why? Because we have cheap affordable energy that leads to better housing, better health care, better everything.

Let me put it in words that you will ignore. Fighting global warming will lead to a hell of a lot of premature deaths that could have easily been prevented if we focussed our attention on bringing freedom and economic prosperity to the third world. The environmental benefit would just be a bonus. But I know. Let them die, we need to save the planet. So can I get my private jet to fly back home on the weekends.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: climate change

Postby jrockncash » Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:23 pm

[quote="dudejcb" (my guess is that right wing retards are no smarter than left wing retards.)[/quote]


That reminds me of one of my favorite quotes. "You go far enough to the Left and you start running into idiots on the Right"

Whats the Wilderness Societies stance on wind farms?
There is more value to land not developed than simply monetary. Aldo Leopold

The only thing necessary for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Edmond Burke

What could be worse than getting humped by Bears? Bubbles Trailer Park Boys
User avatar
jrockncash
hunter
 
Posts: 2917
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:06 pm
Location: yelling at kids to get off my lawn.

Previous

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests