twa Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 what does the science say about providing energy needs? unicorn farts don't get ya far....or keep ya warm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 Science says that we can clean up coal and oil usage while promoting clean energy and STILL meet or needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Science says that we can clean up coal and oil usage while promoting clean energy and STILL meet or needs. we have been doing that, just some of us do it better/smarter. selling out to stupidity doesn't accomplish much.....besides killing the economy and enriching con artists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 We get it TWA, your state falls into major depression if/when petroleum gets mostly phased out. We understand that you have skin in the game. But can you please stop this fake country wannabe persona? It get's old and really, no one is buying it anymore. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 science says ya are wrong,as does reality. btw...yours seems in a depression either way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I don't know what the answer is. I honestly think the state of education is so poor in this country that close to half the population can't tell fact from fiction. Close to half? You're generous. I'd put it at like 70-80%. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) Science says that we can clean up coal and oil usage while promoting clean energy and STILL meet or needs. I think a huge game changer will be the development of energy storage units at home. I'm betting on Elon Musk getting it done. http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/13/8033691/why-teslas-battery-for-your-home-should-terrify-utilities Edited February 17, 2015 by Hersh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 This seems to have derailed into a discussion of alternative energy and associated costs. I want to know how the lawsuit is going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Musk is hoping to take advantage of the duck curve problem and subsidies/regs . certainly might work for him if there is not change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 we have been doing that, just some of us do it better/smarter. selling out to stupidity doesn't accomplish much.....besides killing the economy and enriching con artists The only stupidity is republican denial and those who buy into it. Speaking of enriching con artists.... Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Overview - Oil Change InternationalOil Change International But here's the problem... The Pentagon and Climate Change: Is National Security at Risk? | Rolling Stone "Military readiness is already being impacted by sea-level rise," says Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, who mentions that with all the flooding, it's becoming difficult to sell a house in some parts of Norfolk. If the melting of Greenland and West Antarctica continues to accelerate at current rates, scientists say Norfolk could see more than seven feet of sea-level rise by 2100. In 25 years, operations at most of these bases are likely to be severely compromised. Within 50 years, most of them could be goners. If the region gets slammed by a big hurricane, the reckoning could come even sooner. "You could move some of the ships to other bases or build new, smaller bases in more protected places," says retired Navy Capt. Joe Bouchard, a former commander of Naval Station Norfolk. "But the costs would be enormous. We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars."Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-pentagon-climate-change-how-climate-deniers-put-national-security-at-risk-20150212#ixzz3S1UGsm00 Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook Why? Because of crooked republicans like this.... Sen. Ted Cruz: Campaign Finance/Money - Industries - Senator 2014 | OpenSecrets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 The only stupidity is republican denial and those who buy into it. Uh, no, while I'll certainly agree that the GOP seems to have turned catering to stupidity into outright creating it, I'm absolutely certain that they do not have exclusive rights to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I can guarantee you one thing, Mike, sea level rise is definitely a major concern (and talked about subject) at our state DOT level. I suspect the same forward thinking occurs at many of the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean bordering DOTs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 Uh, no, while I'll certainly agree that the GOP seems to have turned catering to stupidity into outright creating it, I'm absolutely certain that they do not have exclusive rights to it. Within the context of that "debate" I'll stand by my statement. When it comes to climate change Republicans are the stupid ones. Now, If you have nothing better to contribute, do me a favor and go pick nits elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Within the context of that "debate" I'll stand by my statement. When it comes to climate change Republicans are the stupid ones. Now, If you have nothing better to contribute, do me a favor and go pick nits elsewhere. While that narrative sounds great, it just isn't true. If you actually read what the scientists (not political spokes people, but the people that are actually educated on the issue and are the ones researching it) have to say you'll find that they are quite unhappy with the amount of stupid the far left has spewed on the issue. In fact, many of them have some blame to toss to the far left's side for muddying the issue and making it as controversial as it is today. When it comes to climate change, like most political issues, people on both sides have contributed to the stupidity. Sure, it's in different ways and has different impacts, but the contributions exist nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 I can guarantee you one thing, Mike, sea level rise is definitely a major concern (and talked about subject) at our state DOT level. I suspect the same forward thinking occurs at many of the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean bordering DOTs. Oh, I know it is. And republican "leadership" has ignored both military and civilian calls to do something about it because they are corrupt and profit by the hundreds of millions from oil and gas companies. Ted Cruz alone raked in $946,568 in funds from big oil and gas. THAT WE KNOW OF. While that narrative sounds great, it just isn't true. If you actually read what the scientists (not political spokes people, but the people that are actually educated on the issue and are the ones researching it) have to say you'll find that they are quite unhappy with the amount of stupid the far left has spewed on the issue. In fact, many of them have some blame to toss to the far left's side for muddying the issue and making it as controversial as it is today. When it comes to climate change, like most political issues, people on both sides have contributed to the stupidity. Sure, it's in different ways and has different impacts, but the contributions exist nonetheless. I call bull****. Instead of making these claims why don't you show me an example and prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I call bull****. Instead of making these claims why don't you show me an example and prove it. read the blogs of the people researching it. you'll find it. call bull**** all you want. if you can't separate the politicization of the issue from what the actual researches and scientists are saying, that's your problem. neither side is doing a particularly 'good' job on the issue. they have different issues and one is significantly more malicious than the other (in my opinion) but pretending the issue rests solely on one side is a bit... well, you can finish that however you please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 You do know the NE coast is sinking?....it will get ya'lls coast long before sea level rise. unless another age age hits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 Another classic contribution of bile from TWA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 While that narrative sounds great, it just isn't true. If you actually read what the scientists (not political spokes people, but the people that are actually educated on the issue and are the ones researching it) have to say you'll find that they are quite unhappy with the amount of stupid the far left has spewed on the issue. In fact, many of them have some blame to toss to the far left's side for muddying the issue and making it as controversial as it is today. When it comes to climate change, like most political issues, people on both sides have contributed to the stupidity. Sure, it's in different ways and has different impacts, but the contributions exist nonetheless. This isn't quite true. Scientists tend to be very cautious people and are very hesitant t proclaim any causal relationship or anything with 100% certainty. However, 99% of the research done in the field seems to be coming up with similar results. That's about as strong as you can get. Now, I talked to quite a few scientists who were careful about what the data meant, but almost none that didn't find data indicating very real effects. The one who spoke to me who argued against climate change and is a leader in the opposition movement has a degree as a physician. He specializes in heart disease. The science is profound, deep, and telling. We do not know the exact causation, but denying the data is showing a pattern or trend that is dangerous because of that is sort of like dismissing the thesis to worry about grammar to some extent. Climate deniers are screaming about the missing commas and ignoring the science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 read the blogs of the people researching it. you'll find it. call bull**** all you want. if you can't separate the politicization of the issue from what the actual researches and scientists are saying, that's your problem. neither side is doing a particularly 'good' job on the issue. they have different issues and one is significantly more malicious than the other (in my opinion) but pretending the issue rests solely on one side is a bit... well, you can finish that however you please. Again.. Pure unadulterated bull****. Blogs?... Really?.... Here is what REAL scientists say: Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet Climate change — European Environment Agency (EEA) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Again.. Pure unadulterated bull****. Blogs?... Really?.... Here is what REAL scientists say: Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet Climate change — European Environment Agency (EEA) Are you unaware that actual researchers have blogs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) The science is profound, deep, and telling. We do not know the exact causation, but denying the data is showing a pattern or trend that is dangerous because of that is sort of like dismissing the thesis to worry about grammar to some extent. Climate deniers are screaming about the missing commas and ignoring the science. I think this is pretty solid evidence of human influence: Historical Global CO2 Emissions | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. Theories are discussed in the essay on Simple Models of Climate.) Edited February 17, 2015 by Mad Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Another classic contribution of bile from TWA... ya are probably just sick from not being able to file suit what do Peripheral forebulge mean to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 Or to put it in children's terms for the less scientific minded.... Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air? - YouTube Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 ya are probably just sick from not being able to file suit what do Peripheral forebulge mean to you? Since I haven't actually tried to bring this suit forward, you are once again babbling nonsense in a pitiful attempt at a personal shot at me rather than an intelligent rational debate on the science. Standard for you, and the reason I consider you one step below pond scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now