Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Wed Aug 27, 2014 7:13 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 333 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3474
Actually, follow the money, again sad but true, A Gore flamed this controversy, and well meaning people bought into it and are still buying into it. You gotta love old Al he's so worried about climate change that he wants restrictions on every one .....who can't afford his "carbon tax" he has no problem flying his jet and burning fossil fuel cause he pays a carbon tax. Really co2 is not a huge problem plants live on it, our life is carbon based but certain politicians have driven this in to the auto industry, light bulb industry, (which benefits china), and most of all the big one, energy, simply put folks are getting elected and fortunes are being made on this, but we the tax payers are losing this us government involvement has made some scientists a fortune on grants, all those clinging to the 911 truth bull shit, should take a closer look at man made climate controversy, this is the scandal.

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4736
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
I agree with you on the light bulbs...

However, let's assume (and I am not convinced) that burning fossil fuels has no impact on the environment whatsoever. How do you deal with the finite nature of these resources. In other words, what do we do when they run out?

As somebody who seems pretty self-reliant to me, don't you think the reliance on resources for energy that are going to become increasingly expensive and binds us all to big energy concerns who don't want to lose profits is less estimable than an energy source that you install once for yourself and never pay bills for again i.e. solar?

One could also ask oneself why this source of power was not developed slightly earlier...

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3474
Caputh wrote:
I agree with you on the light bulbs...

However, let's assume (and I am not convinced) that burning fossil fuels has no impact on the environment whatsoever. How do you deal with the finite nature of these resources. In other words, what do we do when they run out?

As somebody who seems pretty self-reliant to me, don't you think the reliance on resources for energy that are going to become increasingly expensive and binds us all to big energy concerns who don't want to lose profits is less estimable than an energy source that you install once for yourself and never pay bills for again i.e. solar?

One could also ask oneself why this source of power was not developed slightly earlier...


I do not think that fossil fuels have no impact just not nearly as extreme as some want us to believe, as far as self reliant, that is the goal, in as much as the USA goes I believe the resources are estimated at hundreds of years even at an accelerated use, they are dragging their heels on natural gas, but thats another story, so why put the boot on the throat of the economy by restricting the exploration and use of known reserves of oil. Obviously solar and wind are great and as electrical storage technology goes forward perhaps that will be primary, but....for now it is not there , coupled with the need for rare earth metals found mostly in china and russia, my opinion is: #1 get the world economy rocking and rolling, then all country's can spend more of their money on batteries storage capacity. If I remember from tech school, a no loss conductor has to be discovered, so far it has, but only at absolute zero, -274degrees f.

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4736
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
I do not think that fossil fuels have no impact just not nearly as extreme as some want us to believe, as far as self reliant, that is the goal, in as much as the USA goes I believe the resources are estimated at hundreds of years even at an accelerated use, they are dragging their heels on natural gas, but thats another story, so why put the boot on the throat of the economy by restricting the exploration and use of known reserves of oil. Obviously solar and wind are great and as electrical storage technology goes forward perhaps that will be primary, but....for now it is not there , coupled with the need for rare earth metals found mostly in china and russia, my opinion is: #1 get the world economy rocking and rolling, then all country's can spend more of their money on batteries storage capacity. If I remember from tech school, a no loss conductor has to be discovered, so far it has, but only at absolute zero, -274degrees f.


I find the question about why solar power in particular "isn't there" the interesting one - and possibly the biggest scandal. Why aren't and weren't more governments interested in funding research into this energy source a bit earlier? Could it be that the oil, gas and coal producers had no vested interest in technological development in this area? Could it be that they lobbied accordingly? Don't we all not want a monthly bill for energy? What if we were self-sufficient?

Questions, questions, questions flooding into the mind of the concerned middle-aged person today...

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2899
Location: Sydney, OZ
I've made numerous comments on this subject in the past. However, life's too short to waste time continuing to debate these issues with people who refuse to even consider the scientific evidence interpreted by the true experts, i.e. climate scientists. Many of these same people are quite happy to believe any ratbag conspiracy theory which comes along, but not true scientific opinion.

If 97% of doctors told you a skin lesion was melanoma and needed to be removed, how long would it take you to do something about it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 5:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1793
Scientists are not infallible gods. They sometimes tend to come to the conclusions their paymasters desire.

I've said a lot on this subject, too. Here's the bottom line...we are never going to stop emitting carbon, the carbon tax is what all the hype is about, and most polluters will just pay the tax as the normal cost of business.

So, we are fucked on this and only time will tell how long and how hard.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5686
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
When the consensus is at or near 99.99%, like the number of climatologists who conclude that global warming is "man made", it's an obvious conclusion. Science has a better track record than politics, which is near 50/50 at any given time. Global warming deniers are just another form of wacko conspiracy theorists.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3474
the percentage you quote is incorrect

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3474
Take time,,read! https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 0139,d.cGE

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 2:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 916
Interesting site.

He must be the .01%

:wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 6:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3474
Yes , but like all truth, in the end it can't be avoided.

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 7:29 pm
Posts: 9578
bravo sierra wrote:
... but only at absolute zero, -274degrees f.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |0| = -273.15 °c

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [aka] -459.67 °f

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [aka] 0 °r

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [aka] 0 k

Image

_________________
Image


Last edited by slime.oofytv.set on Sun Jan 05, 2014 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3474
cool

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2899
Location: Sydney, OZ
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:


Interesting that you read and believe this guy, but not the others who debunk his theories. He believes in Intelligent Design, so he probably thinks he's being smiled upon from above.

pedro2 wrote:
Interesting site.

He must be the .01%

:wink:


Oh, lets give "Dr" Spencer some credit. He's likely to be in the .03%

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-2/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 5:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3474
there are many I read and in reality more agree with the above scientist than the a gore crap, it just doesn't make them money . I also am not into posting a retort every time defending the position.

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 5:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2899
Location: Sydney, OZ
In reality, only .03% of the scientific community agree with this clown. By the way, I'm not trying to defend a position. I'm trying to call the bullshit and raise awareness against the forces of Darkness!

Get thee behind me, Satan!

:wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3474
Like I said I could post a rebuttal but why all you have to do is search, the READ what others say, listen I have personally seen this argument swing back and forth many times remember it does not take a scientist to research the fact that real data with good technology has not been around that long, and all data 150 years, tree ring study and ice core are an interesting place to start.

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:50 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 19443
Location: Somewhere in time
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
Like I said I could post a rebuttal but why all you have to do is search, the READ what others say, listen I have personally seen this argument swing back and forth many times remember it does not take a scientist to research the fact that real data with good technology has not been around that long, and all data 150 years, tree ring study and ice core are an interesting place to start.



One of the best points yet on this subject... :smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 2220
The human race has no fucking idea what it's doing. How many examples do we need?

Trying to figure shit out sometimes causes more destruction than leaving shit alone ever could. We seem so out of harmony with the rest of the living things on this planet.



Tangent:
We all appreciate science. I really dig it. But scientists who like to make proclamations about, say, things that happened "2.3 billion years ago" are deluded or full of shit. A man who will live to be 80 years old talking about what happened 2.3 billion years ago is just plain silly. It's infuriating. It's simply more entertainment. It's not real. It's as bad as religion sometimes. And like religion there's large amounts of money being pissed away. I'm all for reducing suffering through science but a lot of scientists spend their lives dicking around.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:32 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 19443
Location: Somewhere in time
downer mydnyte wrote:
The human race has no fucking idea what it's doing. How many examples do we need?

Trying to figure shit out sometimes causes more destruction than leaving shit alone ever could. We seem so out of harmony with the rest of the living things on this planet.



Tangent:
We all appreciate science. I really dig it. But scientists who like to make proclamations about, say, things that happened "2.3 billion years ago" are deluded or full of shit. A man who will live to be 80 years old talking about what happened 2.3 billion years ago is just plain silly. It's infuriating. It's simply more entertainment. It's not real. It's as bad as religion sometimes. And like religion there's large amounts of money being pissed away. I'm all for reducing suffering through science but a lot of scientists spend their lives dicking around.


Actually when it comes to geology, what we know is on pretty solid ground... :smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 4:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2899
Location: Sydney, OZ
Plook wrote:
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
Like I said I could post a rebuttal but why all you have to do is search, the READ what others say, listen I have personally seen this argument swing back and forth many times remember it does not take a scientist to research the fact that real data with good technology has not been around that long, and all data 150 years, tree ring study and ice core are an interesting place to start.



One of the best points yet on this subject... :smoke:


Hey Plook, which point do you mean? The lack of punctuation in Bravo's post makes it hard for me to work out what you're referring to.

downer mydnyte wrote:
The human race has no fucking idea what it's doing. How many examples do we need?


I agree with that.

Plook wrote:
Actually when it comes to geology, what we know is on pretty solid ground... :smoke:


Can't argue with that either :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3474
read this http://www.examiner.com/article/harvard ... al-warming

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 7:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 2220
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:


More words. Is it supposed to convince me of something? It didn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 7:57 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 19443
Location: Somewhere in time
Uncle Bernie wrote:
Plook wrote:
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
...real data with good technology has not been around that long, and all data 150 years, tree ring study and ice core are an interesting place to start.



One of the best points yet on this subject... :smoke:


Hey Plook, which point do you mean? The lack of punctuation in Bravo's post makes it hard for me to work out what you're referring to.



:smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2899
Location: Sydney, OZ
downer mydnyte wrote:
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:


More words. Is it supposed to convince me of something? It didn't.


Me neither. It's schoolboy stuff. Doesn't even sound scientific...just trying to convince the lowest common denominator.
Come on BS, you can provide better BS than that, surely.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 333 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group