Total Posts:97|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Right-wing solutions to climate change.

Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 5:22:15 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Climate change is happening, and humans are the cause of it. This is not left-wing ideology, but scientific fact. It's time for the conservatives and libertarians to wake up and realize this, because otherwise they're just as dumb as the other side.

Since big government is never the answer, what are some climate solutions that don't require it?
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 8:07:51 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 5:22:15 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
Climate change is happening, and humans are the cause of it. This is not left-wing ideology, but scientific fact. It's time for the conservatives and libertarians to wake up and realize this, because otherwise they're just as dumb as the other side.

Since big government is never the answer, what are some climate solutions that don't require it?

Denying that it's happening seems to be their prime strategy
Meh!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 8:12:04 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 5:22:15 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
Climate change is happening, and humans are the cause of it. This is not left-wing ideology, but scientific fact. It's time for the conservatives and libertarians to wake up and realize this, because otherwise they're just as dumb as the other side.

Since big government is never the answer, what are some climate solutions that don't require it?

Build a seawall with the money left over from the Mexico wall.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 9:37:51 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 8:07:51 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:22:15 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
Climate change is happening, and humans are the cause of it. This is not left-wing ideology, but scientific fact. It's time for the conservatives and libertarians to wake up and realize this, because otherwise they're just as dumb as the other side.

Since big government is never the answer, what are some climate solutions that don't require it?

Denying that it's happening seems to be their prime strategy

I know. They aren't educated enough in the relevant science to understand how it works (I don't blame them, it's boring), but they have enough critical thinking skills to dispute what they hear.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 10:00:11 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 5:22:15 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
Climate change is happening, and humans are the cause of it. This is not left-wing ideology, but scientific fact. It's time for the conservatives and libertarians to wake up and realize this, because otherwise they're just as dumb as the other side.

Since big government is never the answer, what are some climate solutions that don't require it?
Nation's act in accordance with their resources and national interest (energy independence), not in accordance with ideological purity. France, for example, primarily uses nuclear energy as it rid itself of coal dependence in the 1970s. Meanwhile, half of "green" Denmark's electricity is generated by coal power; as a small agrarian nation it lacks the hydropower capacity present in Norwegian fjords and Swedish waterfalls. Germany's coal reliance is 26%, Poland's 90%. As far as we are concerned, petroleum, natural gas and coal make up more than 80% of our total energy supply. Therefore, the swift establishment of "clean" or "fully renewable" energy would conflict with our national interest (industrial base, transportation, etc.).

And to be clear, no one seriously believes climate change is a hoax. There was even a vote in the Senate (98-1) in January 2015 to clarify this position (http://www.senate.gov...). The only "nay" came from Roger Wicker (R-MS), who opposed the role of the Senate as an arbiter of climate science.

Rather than disbelieving climate change, there is a fear regarding swift action which is cloaked as skepticism. For there are those who urge that America must "make sacrifices" in order to "save the climate," whatever that means. And if that entails sacrificing our entire industrial base for the sake of lofty wish fulfillment, then I genuinely wonder who it is that needs to wake up.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 10:38:17 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
I was waiting for one of these threads. Per the EPA, US greenhouse gases are trending down now... much of that due to a switch to lng for energy production.

The contention that libertarians, independents, and conservatives don't understand the 'science' is preposterous and ridiculous. Most realize it isn't JUST anthropological but also cyclical processes which 'science' does not fully understand, therefore jumping on the latest fad science solution isn't wise.

We are already taking measures from creation of carbon sinks at coal fired plants to increased utilization of lng for energy production.

Oh, and to be a dlck... lng is liquid natural gas for you google/wiki phds.

https://www.epa.gov...
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 10:48:28 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 10:00:11 AM, NHN wrote:
Rather than disbelieving climate change, there is a fear regarding swift action which is cloaked as skepticism.

Caution sells better than skepticism; by cloaking the former as the latter, your side shoots itself in the foot.

For there are those who urge that America must "make sacrifices" in order to "save the climate," whatever that means.

It means we prevent the global temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius (the best we're gonna get, unless we all stop driving cars tomorrow).

And if that entails sacrificing our entire industrial base for the sake of lofty wish fulfillment, then I genuinely wonder who it is that needs to wake up.

You don't need to sacrifice the economy. There are cutting-edge clean energy technologies in other parts of the world; they generate so much power, their companies are literally giving it away. Let them set up in America and they'll drive the coal-burners out of business within a decade.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 10:53:58 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 10:48:28 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:00:11 AM, NHN wrote:
Rather than disbelieving climate change, there is a fear regarding swift action which is cloaked as skepticism.

Caution sells better than skepticism; by cloaking the former as the latter, your side shoots itself in the foot.

For there are those who urge that America must "make sacrifices" in order to "save the climate," whatever that means.

It means we prevent the global temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius (the best we're gonna get, unless we all stop driving cars tomorrow).

And if that entails sacrificing our entire industrial base for the sake of lofty wish fulfillment, then I genuinely wonder who it is that needs to wake up.

You don't need to sacrifice the economy. There are cutting-edge clean energy technologies in other parts of the world; they generate so much power, their companies are literally giving it away. Let them set up in America and they'll drive the coal-burners out of business within a decade.

Calling bullishlt on the contention that 'so much clean energy is being produced' it's given away. You talking tidal, the solar farm in morocco, geothermal in Iceland? They are either in their infancy, overstated and completely subsidized, or sold for profit (in the case of morocco).
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 10:54:26 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 5:22:15 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
Climate change is happening, and humans are the cause of it. This is not left-wing ideology, but scientific fact. It's time for the conservatives and libertarians to wake up and realize this, because otherwise they're just as dumb as the other side.

Since big government is never the answer, what are some climate solutions that don't require it?

Colonize the moon
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 11:03:09 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 10:48:28 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:00:11 AM, NHN wrote:
Rather than disbelieving climate change, there is a fear regarding swift action which is cloaked as skepticism.
Caution sells better than skepticism; by cloaking the former as the latter, your side shoots itself in the foot.
I'm not a Republican, but I support the Republican effort to slow down the legislative transition. And so far, feigned skepticism has been successful. What is necessary here is that new technology, not the legislature, leads the transition.

For there are those who urge that America must "make sacrifices" in order to "save the climate," whatever that means.
It means we prevent the global temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius (the best we're gonna get, unless we all stop driving cars tomorrow).
Well, we are not going to stop driving cars and we will not shut down our industries or military bases. Any path ahead including such measures is a non<x>starter.

The Paris agreement is also dead in the water and if you fear rising sea levels, buy a kayak or move upstate.

And if that entails sacrificing our entire industrial base for the sake of lofty wish fulfillment, then I genuinely wonder who it is that needs to wake up.
You don't need to sacrifice the economy. There are cutting-edge clean energy technologies in other parts of the world; they generate so much power, their companies are literally giving it away. Let them set up in America and they'll drive the coal-burners out of business within a decade.
So far, "green energy" can't be stored in the manner of fossil fuel or nuclear energy. That makes it an inefficient alternative sustained by government subsidies.

And I don't know what you mean by "let them set up in America," as America is always open for business. Furthermore, the coal industry is already being forced out by various initiatives.
vortex86
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 11:03:51 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 5:22:15 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
Climate change is happening, and humans are the cause of it. This is not left-wing ideology, but scientific fact. It's time for the conservatives and libertarians to wake up and realize this, because otherwise they're just as dumb as the other side.

Since big government is never the answer, what are some climate solutions that don't require it?

See, this statement is very generalized and is why there's such dissension. It's smug and condescending as well. What percentage of greenhouse gases are anthropogenic? So how can you say humans are THE CAUSE of it? You can argue with ease that we contribute to it, not that we are the sole cause.

There are legitimate reasons people question things. Confidence in the government is at an all time low for one. Secondly, the continued hacked e-mails showing significant bias and skewing of figures by climatologists raise concerns. US footprint vs other nations, and the belief that those nations won't make significant changes while we do and the negative ramifications economically of us doing it while others don't. The lack of focusing on realistic changes to eventually replace or significantly diminish fossil fuel usage. We can't even realistically meet the goals of the Paris agreement set forth by Obama even if all efforts weren't dismissed by Congress and the Supreme Court. While we are still in a downtrodden economy these restrictions and measures don't benefit the US. The amount of money we spend currently on green jobs and clean energy has gotten us nothing. Not to mention the goal of the world is to undershoot the temperature raise to below 2 degrees. As if 1.5 degrees is significantly better at what cost?

The World's most efficient rooftop solar panel is 22% efficient, this is what we have with the billions thrown at research. I am fascinated by the science behind solar power, and hope the translucent panel using singlet fission become a game changer but I am not convinced. Not to mention Solar constitutes .4% of our energy usage.

I am all for cleaning things up, but not at the detriment to our economy that is already struggling. I support Nuclear Energy as it's the only viable way to significantly reduce fossil fuels.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 11:07:27 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 10:53:58 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:28 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:00:11 AM, NHN wrote:
Rather than disbelieving climate change, there is a fear regarding swift action which is cloaked as skepticism.

Caution sells better than skepticism; by cloaking the former as the latter, your side shoots itself in the foot.

For there are those who urge that America must "make sacrifices" in order to "save the climate," whatever that means.

It means we prevent the global temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius (the best we're gonna get, unless we all stop driving cars tomorrow).

And if that entails sacrificing our entire industrial base for the sake of lofty wish fulfillment, then I genuinely wonder who it is that needs to wake up.

You don't need to sacrifice the economy. There are cutting-edge clean energy technologies in other parts of the world; they generate so much power, their companies are literally giving it away. Let them set up in America and they'll drive the coal-burners out of business within a decade.


Calling bullishlt on the contention that 'so much clean energy is being produced' it's given away. You talking tidal, the solar farm in morocco, geothermal in Iceland? They are either in their infancy, overstated and completely subsidized, or sold for profit (in the case of morocco).

Germany and Chile, actually. Solar and wind.

http://www.bloomberg.com...
http://fortune.com...
http://www.bloomberg.com...
https://www.good.is...
https://www.weforum.org...?
vortex86
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 11:09:40 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 11:03:09 AM, NHN wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:28 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:00:11 AM, NHN wrote:
Rather than disbelieving climate change, there is a fear regarding swift action which is cloaked as skepticism.
Caution sells better than skepticism; by cloaking the former as the latter, your side shoots itself in the foot.
I'm not a Republican, but I support the Republican effort to slow down the legislative transition. And so far, feigned skepticism has been successful. What is necessary here is that new technology, not the legislature, leads the transition.

For there are those who urge that America must "make sacrifices" in order to "save the climate," whatever that means.
It means we prevent the global temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius (the best we're gonna get, unless we all stop driving cars tomorrow).
Well, we are not going to stop driving cars and we will not shut down our industries or military bases. Any path ahead including such measures is a non<x>starter.

The Paris agreement is also dead in the water and if you fear rising sea levels, buy a kayak or move upstate.

And if that entails sacrificing our entire industrial base for the sake of lofty wish fulfillment, then I genuinely wonder who it is that needs to wake up.
You don't need to sacrifice the economy. There are cutting-edge clean energy technologies in other parts of the world; they generate so much power, their companies are literally giving it away. Let them set up in America and they'll drive the coal-burners out of business within a decade.
So far, "green energy" can't be stored in the manner of fossil fuel or nuclear energy. That makes it an inefficient alternative sustained by government subsidies.

And I don't know what you mean by "let them set up in America," as America is always open for business. Furthermore, the coal industry is already being forced out by various initiatives.

this.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 11:12:03 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 11:03:09 AM, NHN wrote:
I'm not a Republican, but I support the Republican effort to slow down the legislative transition. And so far, feigned skepticism has been successful. What is necessary here is that new technology, not the legislature, leads the transition.

I agree that new technology is needed. I disagree that feigned skepticism is the answer. Feigned skepticism is a form of lying.

Well, we are not going to stop driving cars and we will not shut down our industries or military bases. Any path ahead including such measures is a non<x>starter.

No serious climate scientist would ever suggest such a ridiculous path. They hate the Greenies as much as everybody else.

The Paris agreement is also dead in the water and if you fear rising sea levels, buy a kayak or move upstate.

"Buy a kayak" is not a valid answer, it's merely a dismissal.

So far, "green energy" can't be stored in the manner of fossil fuel or nuclear energy. That makes it an inefficient alternative sustained by government subsidies.

And I don't know what you mean by "let them set up in America," as America is always open for business. Furthermore, the coal industry is already being forced out by various initiatives.

What I mean is: tear down all the red tape so they can come in and rape the coal industry to bloody death.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 11:14:24 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Nhn, vortex, we are going to be called deniers for NOT taking the extreme, on either side, approach and for pointing out several of the things the US is doing to reduce our contribution... not to mention the fact that nobody has a full grasp as to humanities role into the cyclical changes occurring.

However, I'd safely assume, if I may, all 3 would like to reduce our polluting via recycling, serious efforts made at increasing potable water (truly our biggest environmental challenge), and continued energy industry increases in efficiency/scrubbing technologies/new-cleaner technologies/and lifting of all the red tape on nuclear permits.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 11:51:10 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 9:37:51 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 9/29/2016 8:07:51 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:22:15 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
Climate change is happening, and humans are the cause of it. This is not left-wing ideology, but scientific fact. It's time for the conservatives and libertarians to wake up and realize this, because otherwise they're just as dumb as the other side.

Since big government is never the answer, what are some climate solutions that don't require it?

Denying that it's happening seems to be their prime strategy

I know. They aren't educated enough in the relevant science to understand how it works (I don't blame them, it's boring), but they have enough critical thinking skills to dispute what they hear.

IT'S BORING!?!?!
(Internally implodes)
Meh!
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 12:59:38 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 5:22:15 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
Climate change is happening, and humans are the cause of it. This is not left-wing ideology, but scientific fact. It's time for the conservatives and libertarians to wake up and realize this, because otherwise they're just as dumb as the other side.

Since big government is never the answer, what are some climate solutions that don't require it?

look at the smog filled cities that have been that way for so long, the people who live there don't care enough to change their habits, what makes you think they care about something that may or may not be true in their eyes? The states could do something I suppose, with public transportation, but that's a money loss and requires more tax money, it's not a priority plain and simple, we'll have to wait for a crisis then everyone will panic to do something. Proactive is contra to government.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 1:38:18 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 11:12:03 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 9/29/2016 11:03:09 AM, NHN wrote:
I'm not a Republican, but I support the Republican effort to slow down the legislative transition. And so far, feigned skepticism has been successful. What is necessary here is that new technology, not the legislature, leads the transition.
I agree that new technology is needed. I disagree that feigned skepticism is the answer. Feigned skepticism is a form of lying.
The skepticism has been highly efficient when it comes to shifting the discussion away from extreme measures.

The Senate rejected the Kyoto Protocol by 95-0 in July 1997 (http://www.senate.gov...). But Senators Lieberman and McCain led an effort in 2003 to sneakily reintroduce the Kyoto targets, and the very same United Nations regulatory regime, through a "market-friendly" cap and trade bill (http://www.senate.gov...). The bill was 7 votes shy of passage and was supported by all of the Obama Republicans (Chafee, Lugar, Snowe, Collins, Gregg) yet opposed by Southern Democrats (Byrd, Breaux, Landrieu, Lincoln, Miller, Pryor).

In the face of such extremism, where American elected officials are ready to hand over the reins of our energy policy -- by extension, our national security -- I see no problem with neither obstructive measures nor lying.

Well, we are not going to stop driving cars and we will not shut down our industries or military bases. Any path ahead including such measures is a non<x>starter.
No serious climate scientist would ever suggest such a ridiculous path. They hate the Greenies as much as everybody else.
I am yet to see a climate scientist take the industrial base, transportation, or national security into consideration when they determine what is to be done. Please provide an example, because I am tired of seeing the "we must sacrifice X" rhetoric, which is just pure green/end-times ideology.

The Paris agreement is also dead in the water and if you fear rising sea levels, buy a kayak or move upstate.
"Buy a kayak" is not a valid answer, it's merely a dismissal.
Yes, it is. We can't internationally collectivize ourselves out of this challenge. A serious solution will not involve an agreement in which China and India will keep industrializing, while we downsize and feed them brand new technology -- free of charge -- so that we all can attain the arbitrary goals set by national politicians (not the scientists of the UNFCCC) at the latest climate conference.

In the face of such nonsense, I settle with the equally disingenuous kayak option.

So far, "green energy" can't be stored in the manner of fossil fuel or nuclear energy. That makes it an inefficient alternative sustained by government subsidies.

And I don't know what you mean by "let them set up in America," as America is always open for business. Furthermore, the coal industry is already being forced out by various initiatives.
What I mean is: tear down all the red tape so they can come in and rape the coal industry to bloody death.
You're contradicting yourself here. Much of the red tape regards EPA regulation, most of which is necessary to keep in check an industry in rapid transition.

Moreover, nuclear energy is not the savior that it once was considered (http://www.wsj.com...). It is very expensive to maintain, takes up to 20 years to reach maximum capacity and does not generate enough revenue for investors, unless heavily subsidized.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 2:24:39 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 5:22:15 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
Climate change is happening, and humans are the cause of it. This is not left-wing ideology, but scientific fact. It's time for the conservatives and libertarians to wake up and realize this, because otherwise they're just as dumb as the other side.

Since big government is never the answer, what are some climate solutions that don't require it?

is it really happening? scientific fact? um not according to everyone, if it's not a "left-wing ideology" then why is it called that?
can you debunk this guys claims? not saying they can't be but can you?
https://youtu.be...
Fernyx
Posts: 333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 6:50:01 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 5:22:15 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
Climate change is happening, and humans are the cause of it. This is not left-wing ideology, but scientific fact. It's time for the conservatives and libertarians to wake up and realize this, because otherwise they're just as dumb as the other side.

Since big government is never the answer, what are some climate solutions that don't require it?

My idea is to work with the main sources of it, China and Japan. They have some of the most polluted cities on earth and there is a chance of them running out of drinkable water by 2025. I would add to try to reforest the Middle East, but I doubt those countries would be diplomatic enough to try to work with other countries.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 7:06:38 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 6:50:01 PM, Fernyx wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:22:15 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
Climate change is happening, and humans are the cause of it. This is not left-wing ideology, but scientific fact. It's time for the conservatives and libertarians to wake up and realize this, because otherwise they're just as dumb as the other side.

Since big government is never the answer, what are some climate solutions that don't require it?

My idea is to work with the main sources of it, China and Japan. They have some of the most polluted cities on earth and there is a chance of them running out of drinkable water by 2025. I would add to try to reforest the Middle East, but I doubt those countries would be diplomatic enough to try to work with other countries.

Someone else actually realizes that potable water is a disaster just around the corner! Thank you!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 7:13:47 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 11:14:24 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
Nhn, vortex, we are going to be called deniers for NOT taking the extreme, on either side, approach and for pointing out several of the things the US is doing to reduce our contribution... not to mention the fact that nobody has a full grasp as to humanities role into the cyclical changes occurring.

However, I'd safely assume, if I may, all 3 would like to reduce our polluting via recycling, serious efforts made at increasing potable water (truly our biggest environmental challenge), and continued energy industry increases in efficiency/scrubbing technologies/new-cleaner technologies/and lifting of all the red tape on nuclear permits.

Humans are adaptable, I'm far more concerned about an asteroid impact than some extra sunscreen and tidal protection.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 7:17:12 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 7:13:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/29/2016 11:14:24 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
Nhn, vortex, we are going to be called deniers for NOT taking the extreme, on either side, approach and for pointing out several of the things the US is doing to reduce our contribution... not to mention the fact that nobody has a full grasp as to humanities role into the cyclical changes occurring.

However, I'd safely assume, if I may, all 3 would like to reduce our polluting via recycling, serious efforts made at increasing potable water (truly our biggest environmental challenge), and continued energy industry increases in efficiency/scrubbing technologies/new-cleaner technologies/and lifting of all the red tape on nuclear permits.

Humans are adaptable, I'm far more concerned about an asteroid impact than some extra sunscreen and tidal protection.

what about depletion of potable water (ogallala aquifer, drying out of the Colorado, lake mead at historic low just to name a couple).
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 7:17:31 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 11:07:27 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:53:58 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:28 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:00:11 AM, NHN wrote:
Rather than disbelieving climate change, there is a fear regarding swift action which is cloaked as skepticism.

Caution sells better than skepticism; by cloaking the former as the latter, your side shoots itself in the foot.

For there are those who urge that America must "make sacrifices" in order to "save the climate," whatever that means.

It means we prevent the global temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius (the best we're gonna get, unless we all stop driving cars tomorrow).

And if that entails sacrificing our entire industrial base for the sake of lofty wish fulfillment, then I genuinely wonder who it is that needs to wake up.

You don't need to sacrifice the economy. There are cutting-edge clean energy technologies in other parts of the world; they generate so much power, their companies are literally giving it away. Let them set up in America and they'll drive the coal-burners out of business within a decade.


Calling bullishlt on the contention that 'so much clean energy is being produced' it's given away. You talking tidal, the solar farm in morocco, geothermal in Iceland? They are either in their infancy, overstated and completely subsidized, or sold for profit (in the case of morocco).

Germany and Chile, actually. Solar and wind.

http://www.bloomberg.com...
http://fortune.com...
http://www.bloomberg.com...
https://www.good.is...
https://www.weforum.org...?

That's not what one of the articles says. It says Chile doesn't have the transmission lines to actually distribute the solar power they are producing, so it's wasted power.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 7:18:53 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 7:17:12 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 7:13:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/29/2016 11:14:24 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
Nhn, vortex, we are going to be called deniers for NOT taking the extreme, on either side, approach and for pointing out several of the things the US is doing to reduce our contribution... not to mention the fact that nobody has a full grasp as to humanities role into the cyclical changes occurring.

However, I'd safely assume, if I may, all 3 would like to reduce our polluting via recycling, serious efforts made at increasing potable water (truly our biggest environmental challenge), and continued energy industry increases in efficiency/scrubbing technologies/new-cleaner technologies/and lifting of all the red tape on nuclear permits.

Humans are adaptable, I'm far more concerned about an asteroid impact than some extra sunscreen and tidal protection.

what about depletion of potable water (ogallala aquifer, drying out of the Colorado, lake mead at historic low just to name a couple).

We have desalination technology. I'm not worried. We have entire human communities in the Nevada desert, I'm sure the rest of the world will find a solution when the pressure is on.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 7:19:56 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 7:17:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/29/2016 11:07:27 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:53:58 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:48:28 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 9/29/2016 10:00:11 AM, NHN wrote:
Rather than disbelieving climate change, there is a fear regarding swift action which is cloaked as skepticism.

Caution sells better than skepticism; by cloaking the former as the latter, your side shoots itself in the foot.

For there are those who urge that America must "make sacrifices" in order to "save the climate," whatever that means.

It means we prevent the global temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius (the best we're gonna get, unless we all stop driving cars tomorrow).

And if that entails sacrificing our entire industrial base for the sake of lofty wish fulfillment, then I genuinely wonder who it is that needs to wake up.

You don't need to sacrifice the economy. There are cutting-edge clean energy technologies in other parts of the world; they generate so much power, their companies are literally giving it away. Let them set up in America and they'll drive the coal-burners out of business within a decade.


Calling bullishlt on the contention that 'so much clean energy is being produced' it's given away. You talking tidal, the solar farm in morocco, geothermal in Iceland? They are either in their infancy, overstated and completely subsidized, or sold for profit (in the case of morocco).

Germany and Chile, actually. Solar and wind.

http://www.bloomberg.com...
http://fortune.com...
http://www.bloomberg.com...
https://www.good.is...
https://www.weforum.org...?

That's not what one of the articles says. It says Chile doesn't have the transmission lines to actually distribute the solar power they are producing, so it's wasted power.

when I read that article and the bottleneck in the Atacama (do people realize just how desolate that desert is??? I mean, it's the drying fvcking place on the planet. The only thing there are some mining outposts) I didn't even bother responding. It was the obvious bait...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 7:23:16 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 7:19:56 PM, Stymie13 wrote:

Germany and Chile, actually. Solar and wind.

http://www.bloomberg.com...

That's not what one of the articles says. It says Chile doesn't have the transmission lines to actually distribute the solar power they are producing, so it's wasted power.

when I read that article and the bottleneck in the Atacama (do people realize just how desolate that desert is??? I mean, it's the drying fvcking place on the planet. The only thing there are some mining outposts) I didn't even bother responding. It was the obvious bait...

Right, one person could read the tag line "solar given away for free" and just think "OH!" that's a great thing...until you read toward the bottom where it explains why investors will no longer be footing the bill for future solar expansion....
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 7:24:56 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 7:18:53 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/29/2016 7:17:12 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 7:13:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/29/2016 11:14:24 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
Nhn, vortex, we are going to be called deniers for NOT taking the extreme, on either side, approach and for pointing out several of the things the US is doing to reduce our contribution... not to mention the fact that nobody has a full grasp as to humanities role into the cyclical changes occurring.

However, I'd safely assume, if I may, all 3 would like to reduce our polluting via recycling, serious efforts made at increasing potable water (truly our biggest environmental challenge), and continued energy industry increases in efficiency/scrubbing technologies/new-cleaner technologies/and lifting of all the red tape on nuclear permits.

Humans are adaptable, I'm far more concerned about an asteroid impact than some extra sunscreen and tidal protection.

what about depletion of potable water (ogallala aquifer, drying out of the Colorado, lake mead at historic low just to name a couple).

We have desalination technology. I'm not worried. We have entire human communities in the Nevada desert, I'm sure the rest of the world will find a solution when the pressure is on.

I lived in one of those Nevada Communities from 98-2001... it's 20 times worse now (and the only country in the world with an effective desalinization program is Israel).

https://www.technologyreview.com...

For the Ogallala this is moderately hopeful. It better be... it is the primary water source for much of the breadbasket and for livestock (pigs and cattle) producing states.

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 7:58:11 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 10:00:11 AM, NHN wrote:
At 9/29/2016 5:22:15 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
And to be clear, no one seriously believes climate change is a hoax. There was even a vote in the Senate (98-1) in January 2015 to clarify this position (http://www.senate.gov...). The only "nay" came from Roger Wicker (R-MS), who opposed the role of the Senate as an arbiter of climate science.

By "climate change" do they mean anthropocentric climate change, or just a pattern of warming?