06 Aug 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadHe could be working for the oil cartels, if we prove warming is coming from burning oil and coal, they may have to cut production, cut workers, etc. Motivation to keep the status quo. Bop till you drop kind of mentality. Put it off to our grandkids, I'll be safely dead so I don't give a crap what happens in the future.
That would be you then.
[b]Of course those who believe that climate change is the result of man's influence are also true believers. Climate change has been happening for as long as the earth has been in existence.
No, a true believer is someone who tries to use such ridiculously stupid arguments to support his position. I don't think I even need ...[text shortened]... that you believe you will loose that job if your attempts at discrediting global warming fail?[/b]
Of course there is that part that the world is being effected negatively right NOW. There is an island off the coast of Alaska that is already flooded by seawater, the natives had to abandon the whole island. That is here and now.
So they would say, big deal, that is just a bunch of indian hicks off in netherland. Of course when it starts flooding Key West, they will go, WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW.
A dollar short and a day late.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat job do I have? I'm talking about jobs in general.
That would be you then.
[b]Of course those who believe that climate change is the result of man's influence are also true believers. Climate change has been happening for as long as the earth has been in existence.
No, a true believer is someone who tries to use such ridiculously stupid arguments to support his position. I don't think I even need ...[text shortened]... that you believe you will loose that job if your attempts at discrediting global warming fail?[/b]
I'm also talking about the price of fuel for my car. People believe that the price of fuel should be jacked up to lower the use of fuel. It just means I have less money for other things and only people who are relatively rich don't have to worry about it. Nice.
I'm not trying to discredit global warming. No amount of evidence will change your mind.
Originally posted by EladarOK, so which jobs would be lost? Your profile says you are from the US. Surely if you switch to green energy it will provide a significant boost in jobs? Not only will energy production move closer to home, instead of the middle east etc, but new technology development would provide significant numbers of jobs.
What job do I have? I'm talking about jobs in general.
I'm also talking about the price of fuel for my car. People believe that the price of fuel should be jacked up to lower the use of fuel. It just means I have less money for other things and only people who are relatively rich don't have to worry about it. Nice.
If you are in the US, then you pay less for fuel than just about anyone else in the world.
Do you also realise that if you switched to electric cars, you would actually pay less? Yet people like you are responsible for delaying the advent of electric cars.
I'm not trying to discredit global warming.
You quite clearly are. You have given two clearly false arguments for your stance:
1. You gave an example of a single weather event that didn't match the trend and suggested that this proved there was no trend.
2. You claimed man could not affect climate because the climate has changed in the past without mans intervention.
No amount of evidence will change your mind.
I am yet to see you actually present any evidence. And to be honest, I am not in a position to judge much of the evidence even if it was presented to me. So I tend to listen to what those who have the necessary qualifications have to say.
You on the other hand just want to pay less for fuel so you make up nonsense to try and influence government. You must be a republican.
06 Aug 13
Originally posted by EladarYour clumsy attempt to bring politics into a discussion about science is, quite frankly, pretty embarrassing.
It seems that you like to argue about this much more than I do.
Judging from your posts, there is nothing to be gained here. All you have to offer is the left's solution, which has proven over and over again to fail, but you are unwilling or unable to see it.
06 Aug 13
Originally posted by EladarThere is no argument at all actually. I am just curious as to why people wish to discredit climate change. You have been rather vague until now, switching from a vague reference to jobs, then the price of fuel.
It seems that you like to argue about this much more than I do.
Judging from your posts, there is nothing to be gained here. All you have to offer is the left's solution, which has proven over and over again to fail, but you are unwilling or unable to see it.
Ah. So its a political thing? Your party tells you something and you have to stick to it?
This might interest you:
It basically says the republicans loose elections because of their stance on global warming.
I must also add that I am not a democrat since I am not american, nor did I offer any 'solution'. I merely asked you why you thought jobs would be lost if the US switched to renewable energy because I think jobs would be gained. I am also curious as to why you think this has failed over and over. Has the US switched to renewable energy several times, or are you just stuck in ridiculous logic mode?
06 Aug 13
Originally posted by EladarTake a look at this site and tell me there is no climate change:
Weather is used as evidence for climate change all the time. Weather becomes climate change when the weather fits what you would like to see.
Everyone knows this. Have a hot summer! Global warming. Have a cool summer, then you have cool weather. Lol
http://www.businessinsider.com/islands-threatened-by-climate-change-2012-10?op=1
Then you look at the rising CO2 levels and see that rise with the use of fossil fuels in the last 100 years and tell me none of this is caused by mankind.
Look at the whole thing, including the 16 reasons, irrefutable reasons why there is climate change going on in front of our very eyes.
06 Aug 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadGermany's heavy investment in renewables has been quite disastrous. Expensive, unreliable power, and what do they have to show for it? A few votes from Greens, maybe. And higher greenhouse emissions. By contrast, France has been widely successful for a long time through their investment in nuclear power, which has provided them with cost-effective and clean power for decades. Hydro-electric power is fairly cheap, renewable and clean, but not available everywhere (Norway gets almost all of their power from hydro though, despite being a major oil producer). The US would do well to invest heavily in nuclear (even if the shale gas boom will likely see the US turn into a net oil exporter by the end of this decade), but that's not likely to happen even under a Republican administration.
There is no argument at all actually. I am just curious as to why people wish to discredit climate change. You have been rather vague until now, switching from a vague reference to jobs, then the price of fuel.
[b]Judging from your posts, there is nothing to be gained here. All you have to offer is the left's solution, which has proven over and over a ...[text shortened]... S switched to renewable energy several times, or are you just stuck in ridiculous logic mode?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Aug 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYea for this.
Germany's heavy investment in renewables has been quite disastrous. Expensive, unreliable power, and what do they have to show for it? A few votes from Greens, maybe. And higher greenhouse emissions. By contrast, France has been widely successful for a long time through their investment in nuclear power, which has provided them with cost-effective and c ...[text shortened]... e end of this decade), but that's not likely to happen even under a Republican administration.
We need to go nuclear and go nuclear now.
10~15 yrs is all it would take to remove all fossil fuels from our power generation
and replace it with nuclear.
Trouble is it's such a huge upfront investment that pretty much only governments
can afford to do it.
Which is why we keep building coal power plants.
06 Aug 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis links lists 33 of those type companies supported by the Obama adminsitration that have filed for bankruptcy
There is no argument at all actually. I am just curious as to why people wish to discredit climate change. You have been rather vague until now, switching from a vague reference to jobs, then the price of fuel.
[b]Judging from your posts, there is nothing to be gained here. All you have to offer is the left's solution, which has proven over and over a ...[text shortened]... S switched to renewable energy several times, or are you just stuck in ridiculous logic mode?
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/
The Instructor
06 Aug 13
Originally posted by sonhouseThis might turn out to be a good thing.
Take a look at this site and tell me there is no climate change:
http://www.businessinsider.com/islands-threatened-by-climate-change-2012-10?op=1
Then you look at the rising CO2 levels and see that rise with the use of fossil fuels in the last 100 years and tell me none of this is caused by mankind.
Look at the whole thing, including the 16 reasons, irrefutable reasons why there is climate change going on in front of our very eyes.
The Instructor
07 Aug 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe nuclear option isn't straightforward. You are making a several hundred year commitment with each station. I don't want them building a bunch of PWRs, AGRs are much safer because there is no possibility of a Hydrogen-Zirconium reaction. A Magnox in the UK had a fuel rod cladding melt and leaked fuel pellets into the reactor containment vessel - it wasn't a great problem, they had the reactor running again in about 2 years. In a PWR there's a hydrogen gas build-up that can be a problem. All the AGRs in the UK were designed before 1980 so they'd need to use a new design, as they tended to overcomplicate in the 70s.
Yea for this.
We need to go nuclear and go nuclear now.
10~15 yrs is all it would take to remove all fossil fuels from our power generation
and replace it with nuclear.
Trouble is it's such a huge upfront investment that pretty much only governments
can afford to do it.
Which is why we keep building coal power plants.